beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged as either of the parties to a dispute or as a whole by taking into account the entries in Gap 3 and 4 and the entire purport of the arguments as a result of the response to each submission of financial transaction information by this Court:
A. On July 14, 2009, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the Plaintiff as the insured indicated in the attached Form B (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”). The instant insurance contract includes a special agreement that guarantees the daily amount of hospitalization in cases where the insured is hospitalized due to injury or disease.
B. B had been hospitalized for 537 days over 33 occasions from March 27, 2011 to March 11, 2015, and the Defendant received insurance money of KRW 40,876,667 (daily allowances and medical expenses) from the Plaintiff on the ground of the foregoing insured incident.
C. The current status of each insurance contract concluded by the Defendant and B as the insured is as shown in the attached Table, and the total sum of the insurance proceeds received by the Defendant and B from the Plaintiff and other insurance companies is KRW 194,927,67 (=Plaintiff 29,100,000 in AI life insurance of KRW 17,520,000 in JG life insurance of KRW 32,520,000 in JG life insurance of KRW 21,940,123 in Mazz fire insurance of KRW 32,40,000 in Maz Fire Insurance of KRW 19,298,904,90 in KB damage insurance of KRW 232,696).
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant concluded the insurance contract of this case for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts rather than pure risks to pure life, body, etc., and in light of the reasons for hospitalization, the period of hospitalization and frequency of hospitalization, etc., B repeats excessive hospitalization or false hospitalization.
Therefore, since the insurance contract of this case is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, it is sought to confirm it. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to return the amount equivalent to the insurance amount received according to the insurance contract of this case to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, and even if the insurance contract of this case is not null