1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2010, Defendant B entered into an insurance contract on the indication of the attached insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A whose husband is the insured (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. From September 3, 2010 to September 20, 2010, Defendant A received from the Jinju Medical Center a total of KRW 23,570,000 insurance money from the Plaintiff, after being hospitalized for 18 days on the ground of urology, skin farming, cerebral typhism, etc., as indicated in the payment status of the insurance money, as stated in the attached Table, on September 3, 2010 to November 6, 2014.

C. From April 30, 2009 to August 11, 2010, the Defendants entered into a nine guarantee insurance contract with several insurance companies including the instant insurance contract, and the content and nature of coverage, as stated in the status of the subscription to the attached insurance, and received total KRW 230,854,157 from the insurance companies including the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, Defendant B had already subscribed to other guaranteed insurance prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, but did not notify it at the time of concluding the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1 through 3, and 6 through 8 (including each number), each of the information pertaining to DGB life insurance (or Gu AB life insurance), Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance, Korea Post, MWz fire and marine insurance, LIG damage insurance, oriental product damage insurance, and lot damage insurance, the purport of the entire arguments, as a result of each order to submit financial transaction information,

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned that the defendants concluded the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts. Thus, the insurance contract of this case is null and void against good morals and other social order, and accordingly, the defendant A has entered into the insurance contract of this case.