1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant A and Defendant B are married couple.

B. On March 6, 2004, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, the Defendant A as the Insured (insured) and the insurance contract indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) was concluded.

C. From May 7, 2003 to September 19, 2006, 10 insurance contracts were concluded between the Defendants, including the instant insurance contract, with the policyholders or the insured (beneficiary).

The detailed details are as shown in the attached Table 1. D.

Based on the instant insurance contract, Defendant A received total of KRW 22,940,000 from the Plaintiff during the period from July 7, 2005 to May 2, 2014.

The detailed details are as shown in attached Table 2.

E. Meanwhile, the total amount of income and amount of income of the Defendants reported to the competent tax office from 2004 to 2015 are as shown in the attached Table 3.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 47 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, the court's fact-finding results on Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Alurian Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Meurian Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Merez Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and North Maz Fire Insurance Co.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendants concluded a security insurance contract with multiple insurers and received duplicate guarantees for the daily admission allowances.

The instant insurance contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is concluded for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts, and is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act.

B. Even if the instant insurance contract is not null and void, the Defendant A was hospitalized on purpose by pretending or inducing an insured incident.

Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the insurance accident that plans the insurance contract of this case and the hospitalized treatment of the defendant A.

C. Defendant A received the instant insurance contract that is null and void for the Plaintiff.