1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant determined that “the insured, the Defendant, the insurance period from August 19, 2005 to August 19, 205,” which covers expenses for hospitalization of diseases, medical expenses for hospitalization of injury, medical expenses for hospitalization of injury, etc.,” and ② on September 28, 2005, the Plaintiff concluded a DNA insurance contract that guarantees general injury medical expenses, medical expenses for hospitalization of diseases, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant insurance contracts” by adding up two insurance contracts as “the insured, the Defendant, the insurance period from September 28, 2005 to September 28, 2020.”

The details of each insurance contract of this case are as shown in attached Form 1.

B. From September 2005 to February 2, 2018, the Defendant received hospital treatment for approximately 237 days through around 377 days for treatment of catitis, ionoman fever, verteum fever, verteume, cat, fatitis, etc., as shown in the attached Table 2 list, and received insurance proceeds from the Plaintiff in total KRW 47,024,506.

C. Meanwhile, from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2016, the detailed details of the insurance contract concluded by the Defendant as the insured or policyholder are as shown in the attached Table 3.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap's evidence 3 through 10, Eul's evidence 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), E, F, G, H, I, I, Postal Information Center, J, K, K, L, and M, as a result of response to each order to submit financial transaction information, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. After the conclusion of each of the instant insurance contracts, the Defendant concluded multiple insurance contracts with similar coverage, and received the insurance proceeds by unfairly receiving hospitalized treatment due to the fact that no need exists for hospitalized treatment.

Therefore, each insurance contract of this case is concluded for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance money, and is in good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.