1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasons for this part of the recognition are as follows: “Two insurance contracts (hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”)” in the 12th 12 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “two insurance contracts (securities number E, F; hereinafter “each of the instant insurance contracts”); “51,896 won (=45,409 won)” in the 2nd 13th 103,792 [[45,409 won 6,487 won] x 2]; “The number of securities”, “E”, “F” and “F” in the 2nd 12nd 12nd 2nd 2nd 17th 17th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 1,7050, “1050 won” and “205th 405th 200”.

2. Determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine 1) Since a life insurance contract is an agreement to pay money to a contingency on a human life, and thus is likely to cause moral hazard, such as intentionally murdering the insured for the purpose of acquiring money, it is strongly demanded to conclude the contract. Thus, if a life insurance contract is concluded for the purpose of acquiring insurance money solely by pretending an insured incident from the beginning, it is highly likely to cause illegal act of taking benefits as a means of human life if it is concluded for the purpose of acquiring insurance money. The payment of insurance money according to a life insurance contract concluded for such purpose would deviate from social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust benefits by abusing the insurance contract, and thus, such a life insurance contract shall be null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da49064, Feb. 11, 200). Meanwhile, where an insurance contract is concluded for the purpose of illegally acquiring insurance money through multiple insurance contracts.