1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 30, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant listed in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. From November 5, 2008 to October 28, 2014, the Defendant hospitalized 427 days in the hospital in total at 11 times due to disease, such as the two sides, face, massage, cryptoitis, Gap merchant boat disability, acute growth salt, and air conditioning, and received insurance proceeds totaling KRW 14,249,680 from the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1, 3, 4-1 through 10, 5-1 through 12, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The allegation that the instant insurance contract was concluded with multiple insurance companies for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds by entering into multiple insurance contracts and being hospitalized for a long time, even though there is no need for hospitalization. Thus, it constitutes a juristic act contrary to good morals and other social order as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act

Therefore, it is confirmed that the insurance contract of this case is null and void, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of 14,249,680 won and delay damages paid by the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. 1) In a case where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance money under an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would be out of social reasonableness by encouraging speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts. Moreover, the purpose of the insurance system, such as reasonable diversification of risks, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of numerous subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005); and