1. The part against the defendant regarding the conjunctive claim in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. As to the above revoked part.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's incidental appeal concerning the main claim is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in this court, the finding and determination of the facts in the court of first instance is justified.

Therefore, the reasons why this Court is stated are as follows, except for the entry of the first instance court from 7th of the judgment of the first instance to 14th of the same section from 7th of the judgment of the first instance, it is consistent with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and therefore, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【The portion of the Plaintiff’s insurance contract. Furthermore, the Defendant did not receive insurance money from 2003 to 2006, and only received insurance money on one occasion in 2007. In light of such circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant purchased multiple concentrated insurance policies around February 18, 2008 for the purpose of fraudulent acquisition of insurance money.”

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was unjustly paid KRW 10,600,000 as to the insurance money for the 195-day hospitalized treatment by way of receiving the insurance money for the 195-day hospitalized treatment after receiving unnecessary hospitalized treatment.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the same amount to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination: (a) The Defendant received hospitalized treatment at F Hospital, G foreign medical branch, and H convalescent Hospital (hereinafter “Ainpatient”) for 63 days with the knee persium that occurred on March 12, 2010; and (b) KRW 2,890,000 from the Plaintiff as insurance money for this purpose; and (c) KRW 2,890,000 from the Plaintiff with the knee and hnee persium that occurred on July 16, 2013; and (d) for 203 days with knee and hne persium.