1. It is confirmed that each insurance contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is null and void.

2. The defendants are the defendants.

1. In the absence of a dispute over basic facts, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 and No. 1, No. 1 and No. 1 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same) with Defendant B on Dec. 28, 2005, the insured and the beneficiary are determined by Defendant A, who is the father of Defendant B, when concluding the insurance contract (hereinafter the “instant insurance contract”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Defendant B’s assertion concluded the instant insurance contract with the Plaintiff for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds. As such, the instant insurance contract is null and void, and both the insurance money that the Defendants received from the Plaintiff under the instant insurance contract should be returned as unjust enrichment.

B. Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for such purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract. Moreover, the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of a large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

(1) As to whether a policyholder entered into a multiple insurance contract with intent to illegally acquire the relevant insurance proceeds (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005)

Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12115 Decided May 28, 2009