1. The insurance contract entered in the Appendix 1 List concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is invalid.

2. The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant on December 28, 2009, with the content that the Defendant was paid a hospitalization allowance, etc. from the Plaintiff when the insured was determined as the beneficiary of the insurance money other than death and the insured was hospitalized for an injury or disease (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. From April 27, 2010 to May 17, 2010, the Defendant received hospitalized treatment from B for 21 days on the ground of catitis, as shown in attached Table 2 until December 26, 2015.

The Defendant received total of KRW 57,190,000 from the Plaintiff as insurance money for the above hospitalized treatment, etc. according to the instant insurance contract.

C. Meanwhile, before and after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, the insurance contract that the Defendant concluded with the insurance company including the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the beneficiary of the non-life insurance, and the details of monthly insurance premiums, daily allowances for hospitalization, and insurance money paid accordingly are as shown in the attached Table 3.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, and Eul 1 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the fact inquiry results of this court's limited liability insurance company, case non-life insurance company, and the purport of this court's order to submit documents to Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the whole of the arguments

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In the event that a policyholder entered into an insurance contract with a view to unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts with respect to a claim for confirmation of invalidity of an insurance contract, the fact that the insurance proceeds are paid pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would not only instigate speculative spirit to gain unjust benefits by abusing the insurance contract, but also undermine the purpose of the insurance system, i.e., reasonable diversification of risks.