1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

An insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2006, the Plaintiff (the former trade name was Green Cross Life Insurance Co., Ltd., but the trade name was changed to Hyundai Franchi Life Insurance Co., Ltd., on March 29, 2012) concluded an insurance contract on May 4, 2006 with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. From November 1, 2006 to January 25, 2014, the Defendant repeated discharge on several occasions, and received insurance proceeds of KRW 51,809,779 in total from the Plaintiff on the grounds of the same insured incident as indicated in attached Table 2.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant insurance contract was concluded with the intent of the Defendant to illegally acquire insurance proceeds by entering into multiple insurance contracts, and is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to refund the insurance proceeds paid to the Plaintiff based on the instant insurance contract, KRW 51,809,779, and damages for delay thereof, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract with an intention to illegally acquire insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, the payment of insurance proceeds pursuant to an insurance contract concluded for this purpose would be in excess of social reasonableness by inducing speculative spirit to gain unjust profits through abuse of insurance contracts, thereby impairing the purpose of the insurance system, destroying the contingentness of risks, and causing the sacrifice of many subscribers, thereby impairing the foundation of the insurance system. Thus, such insurance contract shall be null and void against good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da23858, Jul. 28, 2005; 9Da49064, Feb. 11, 2000).