1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact of finding the insurance company Nos. 160,60,600 50,000 30,700-70,200 on December 31, 2008, the insurance company’s name of contract date, monthly insurance premium (cost) for injury, daily allowance for hospitalization, and daily allowance for hospitalization (cost) 1 KRB life insurance (cost) : 25,60,000 on December 31, 2008; 36,570 on March 28, 2008; 32,140 on March 28, 2008 - Normalized Loss Insurance Co. 50,000 on January 31, 2008; 36,570 on March 28, 2008 - Normally 4

A. On March 28, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded the instant insurance contract with the Defendant, and among the insurance contracts currently maintained by the Defendant, the status of the insurance contracts that the Defendant concluded with the Defendant as the insured prior to the instant insurance contract is as follows.

(F) No. 5 is the insurance contract of this case).

After the insurance contract of this case, the Defendant received hospital treatment for a total of 546 days under the diagnosis of the 546 days in total under the diagnosis of salt pane, the bones, the bones, and other conical signboards accompanied by the nephal ppuri disease certificate, both sides knee knee knee knee knee kne knee kne knee knee knee kne kne kne knee kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne kne k

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, KRB life insurance company, lot damage insurance company, merz fire insurance company, results of each financial transaction information reply or fact inquiry inquiry inquiry inquiry inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings as a whole.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. As such, the Defendant’s insurance money received from the Plaintiff based on the instant insurance contract ought to be returned to unjust enrichment. Even if the instant insurance contract is not null and void, the Defendant received the insurance money from the Plaintiff due to false or excessive hospitalization, and thus, the insurance money should be returned to unjust enrichment, regardless of the propriety

(b) judgment;