1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) with the Defendant.

B. From January 9, 2010 to September 16, 2014, the Defendant hospitalized the medical institutions listed in the foregoing Table for the period from January 19, 2010 to September 16, 2014 on the ground of the same disease or injury as indicated in the attached Table, and upon the Defendant’s claim for insurance money, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,682,30 in total on each corresponding date listed in the above Table.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3

2. Determination on the claim

A. The plaintiff concluded a contract with multiple hospitalization days including the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance money. Thus, in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Code, the plaintiff asserted the grounds for violation of Article 103 of the Civil Code as the primary and preliminary reasons, but it is not possible to divide and determine the grounds for claim.

It argues that the amount of the insurance money received according to the invalid insurance contract should be returned as unjust enrichment.

B. In a case where a policyholder entered into an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through a large number of insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would not only deviate from social reasonableness by inducing speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts, thereby impairing 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.

In addition, it is necessary to determine whether a policyholder has entered into multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance proceeds.