1. It is confirmed that an insurance contract entered in the separate sheet No. 1 List between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is null and void.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 28, 2005, the Defendants concluded an insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the insured as indicated in the attached Table 1 list between December 28, 2005 and December 28, 2049 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

On November 16, 2015, the contracting parties and beneficiaries of the instant insurance contract were changed from Defendant C to Defendant B.

From October 31, 2006 to December 11, 2006, Defendant B received hospitalization for 1,059 times from October 31, 2006 to April 17, 201, 2006, 56 times from October 31, 2006 to April 17, 2017, as shown in attached Table 2. The Plaintiff paid Defendant B the insurance money of KRW 6,950,000, totaling KRW 44,096,31, totaling KRW 51,00,000 (=6,950,000,000 + KRW 44,000 +6,331,000 + KRW 44,000,000,000,000 + KRW 44,04,004,339,3131) under the insurance contract of this case as shown in attached Form 3.

C. The Defendants entered into a total of 19 insurance contracts with Defendant B as the insured from December 13, 2003 to January 21, 2016, as shown in attached Table 4, and the insurance proceeds received from the insurance companies including the Plaintiff are KRW 328,480,834 in total.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, E Co., Ltd. of this Court (hereinafter referred to as "Co., Ltd."), F, Korea Post (Postal Insurance), G, H, I, J, and K, the whole purport of the arguments, as a result of each order to submit financial transaction information to K

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not to cope with the risk of life, body, etc., but to enter into the instant insurance contract for the purpose of acquiring insurance proceeds in an unlawful way from the beginning with multiple insurance contracts. As such, the instant insurance contract is null and void in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Act as it goes against good morals and other social order, and each of the insurance proceeds that the Defendants received from the Plaintiff constitutes unjust enrichment.