1. It is confirmed that an insurance contract entered in the separate sheet concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

The coverage of the insurance contract of this case includes the payment of 50,000 won per day of hospitalization (180 days limit) in the case of continuous hospitalization as a traffic injury.

B. On March 3, 2015, the Defendant was diagnosed of salt and tensions, 3-43 and 5-1,000 diskss, and was hospitalized from B during the total period from March 4, 2015 to April 4, 2015, and claimed for insurance payment to the Plaintiff.

C. On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,600,000 to the Defendant at the cost of transport injury under the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 9 to 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant entered into the instant insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts in light of the fact that the Defendant was hospitalized for a long time on the grounds of traffic accidents three occasions within a short period after entering into the instant insurance contract.

Therefore, the insurance contract of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is obligated to return the insurance proceeds paid to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant merely subscribed to a number of other guaranteed insurance policies, and does not constitute a form of receiving large amount of insurance proceeds due to a specific accident or disease, and thus does not conclude the instant insurance contract with unjust purposes.

The traffic accident after the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case is not intentionally caused by the defendant, and the defendant's ordinary health condition is good.