1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 21, 2007 and December 28, 2007, the Plaintiff concluded each of the instant insurance contracts with the Defendant.

B. After the insurance contract of this case, the Defendant was hospitalized for 475 days in total under the diagnosis of shackers, shoulderers and shackers, knee, knee, defe, shoulderer, fele, shoulderer, humebrate, engine chrote, etc. during the period from January 21, 2008 to May 7, 2015, and received insurance proceeds from the Plaintiff in total KRW 44,373,911 under each insurance contract of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act. As such, the Defendant’s insurance money received from the Plaintiff based on the instant insurance contract ought to be returned to unjust enrichment. Even if the instant insurance contract is not null and void, the Defendant received the insurance money from the Plaintiff due to false or excessive hospitalization, and thus, the insurance money should be returned to unjust enrichment, regardless of the propriety

B. (1) Determination (1) 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 pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for this purpose will not only lead to deviation from social reasonableness by encouraging 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 the large number of subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract shall be null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on July 28, 2005