1. The insurance contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is invalid.

2. The defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance company running an insurance business under the Insurance Business Act and related Acts and subordinate statutes.

On April 30, 2008, Defendant A entered into the instant insurance contract with himself as the insured and beneficiary (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). On September 24, 2008, Defendant A changed the contractual parties and the beneficiary of the instant insurance contract to Defendant B, one of its own punishment.

B. After the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, Defendant A received hospitalized treatment on the ground of urology, etc. for a total of 66 times, 865 days from May 2008 to June 2013, as shown in the attached Table 2.

In addition, after the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, Defendant B received insurance money from the Plaintiff as KRW 52,021,613 as to the above hospitalized treatment of Defendant A.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant A did not conclude the instant insurance contract in order to cope with risks to pure life, body, etc., but entered into an insurance contract with intent to unlawfully acquire insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts. Accordingly, the instant insurance contract is null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, Defendant B is liable to return the insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff according to the instant insurance contract.

B. The Defendants’ assertion that Defendant A purchased only four insurance contracts between the Plaintiff and the 31th month prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract and the 11th month prior to the conclusion of the instant insurance contract, and thus, Defendant A did not unfairly acquire the insurance proceeds, but did not have purchased a large number of insurance contracts. As such, Defendant A did not have paid excessive insurance premiums compared to the income level.

In addition, the defendant A was hospitalized in a hospital by sparing her life and body, depending on a friendly situation, and was in charge.