1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 18, 2010, the Plaintiff and B concluded an insurance contract indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Defendant, who is the husband of B, as the insured.

B. From May 9, 201 to July 25, 2015, the Defendant received the insurance proceeds of KRW 13,500,000 from the Plaintiff based on the instant insurance contract after receiving hospital treatment for total 301 days due to diseases, such as humconium humconium, conical signboard disability, clifing, conical signboard escape floor, and reduction, as indicated below, during the period from May 9, 201 to July 25, 2015.

CD E EF CF DF DD d [based grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant concluded multiple insurance contracts without any particular property as an unemployed person, and concluded the instant insurance contract with the Plaintiff without notifying the fact of entering into the existing insurance policy, and received the insurance money after being hospitalized for a long time due to a disease with no need to be hospitalized due to surgery, etc.

B. Therefore, since the instant insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, it is null and void against good morals and other social order. The Defendant received insurance proceeds of KRW 13,500,000 from the Plaintiff based on the instant insurance contract null and void, and thus, is obligated to return to the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the above insurance proceeds received without any legal ground.

3. Determination

A. Where a policyholder entered into an insurance contract with a view to unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, such insurance contract will be null and void against good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Code.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to directly recognize whether a policyholder has concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance proceeds.