1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, given that the reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the same shall be quoted pursuant to the main sentence of

2. The fourth "3. Judgment" of the first instance judgment is reversed as follows.

3. Determination

A. 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 this purpose would be in deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits by abusing the insurance contract, and also would undermine the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingencyness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such an insurance contract shall be null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

On the other hand, even if there is no evidence to directly acknowledge whether a policyholder has concluded multiple insurance contracts for the purpose of illegally acquiring the insurance proceeds, such purpose may be ratified based on the following circumstances, such as the occupation and property status of the policyholder, background leading to the conclusion of multiple insurance contracts, scale of the insurance contracts and circumstances after the conclusion of the

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12115 Decided May 28, 2009). However, in full view of all the above circumstances, recognition of the purpose of the policyholder’s wrongful acquisition of insurance proceeds should be prudent, and it should not be readily concluded that the policyholder has the same purpose solely on the ground that the policyholder simply concluded multiple recommended insurance contracts.

B. The above evidence and the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 16 (including, if any, branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the first instance court.