1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 31, 2005, the Defendant concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff with the same content as the indication of the insurance contract in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. From February 16, 2005 to March 4, 2005, the Defendant received the hospitalized treatment for a disease, such as high blood pressure, liveration, etc., from an psychotropic mother hospital located in the Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, and received 560,000 won as insurance money from the Plaintiff on April 7, 2005, and received 560,000 won from the Plaintiff on July 24, 2012 at a total of 66 times from that time to July 24, 2012, the Defendant received 67,520,000 won of insurance money under the insurance contract of this case, upon receipt of the same details as attached Table 2 from several medical institutions.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant concluded the insurance contract of this case with the plaintiff on January 31, 2005 and entered into a pure guarantee insurance contract with a large number of insurance companies around that time. Finally, after entering into the insurance contract, the insurance contract of this case was hospitalized in several hospitals and received a large amount of insurance money for treatment, and received a large amount of insurance money. In light of the above circumstances, it is clear that the insurance contract of this case was concluded with the defendant for the purpose of unjust acquisition of insurance money through multiple insurance contracts. Thus, it is invalid against good morals and other social order under Article 103

Therefore, the Plaintiff demanded against the Defendant to confirm the invalidity of the instant insurance contract, and to return the amount equivalent to KRW 64,935,314, which was paid by the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant insurance contract that was null and void.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Where a policyholder concludes an insurance contract with a view to unjust acquisition of insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts, it is necessary to require the policyholder to pay insurance proceeds under the insurance contract concluded for this purpose.