1. It is confirmed that an insurance contract entered in the separate sheet concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void.

2. The defendant.

1. Indication of claim;

A. On March 9, 2009, the Green Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. that the Plaintiff acquired under a contract concluded with the Defendant an insurance contract on March 9, 2009 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. From January 2009 to March 3, 2009, the Defendant concentrated 10 insurance contracts including the Plaintiff Company, and most of them are guaranteed insurance contracts secured by hospitalization daily allowances, and the sum of the monthly insurance premiums of 14 cases covered by the Defendant reaches KRW 863,512.

In light of the fact that the Defendant did not have paid the property tax, etc., and that the annual income between 2005 and 2013 did not reach 10 million won, the monthly insurance premium paid by the Defendant is excessive.

C. The defendant was diagnosed on May 18, 2009, after the conclusion of the insurance contract of this case, and was diagnosed on the same date.

5. From July 22, 2013, after receiving hospitalized treatment for 12 days up to 29 days, the Plaintiff claimed insurance money to the Plaintiff for a period of 241 days, such as chatitis, knife, knife, liver disease, and knife knife, etc., and claimed insurance money to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid 10,220,000 won to the Defendant.

However, the above diseases cannot be deemed as the disease requiring hospitalization, and even if being hospitalized, it cannot be deemed as a disease requiring hospitalization for a long time, the defendant circulated the hospital in a lump sum and repeated discharge.

The defendant was paid insurance proceeds amounting to 117,160,514 won in total from various insurance companies, including the plaintiff, due to the above insured events.

E. In light of the above circumstances, the instant insurance contract is concluded for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds rather than for the Defendant’s pure risk against life, body, etc., and therefore, it is contrary to good customs and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.