It is confirmed that the insurance contract stated in the "Indication of Insurance Contract" between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) entered into between B and the Defendant’s mother (“Defendant”) with B and the beneficiary as the Defendant.

B. B received hospitalized treatment for 582 days, such as the B accident details and payment details of insurance money, from July 25, 2009 to July 31, 2015 (attached Form 2). Accordingly, the Defendant received KRW 35,000,000,00 as the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract from the Plaintiff from November 9, 2009 to August 11, 2015 (attached Form 2) as the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant insurance contract was concluded for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, and is null and void against good morals and other social order stipulated under Article 103 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the Defendant shall return the insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiff based on the instant insurance contract to the unjust enrichment.

B. 1) Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract with intent to illegally acquire insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts, and not only would it undermine the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroy the contingentness of risks, and cause the sacrifice of numerous subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Therefore, such insurance contract is null and void contrary to good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da202186, May 24, 2016).