1. According to the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added at the trial, the defendant shall pay KRW 3,160,000 to the plaintiff and the defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 3,160,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 26, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant as indicated in [Attachment 1] (“instant insurance contract” (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

B. The Defendant received hospitalized treatment for 299 days in total from August 6, 2009 to September 13, 2014, including the hospitalization for 15 days at the National Assembly members of B foreign service due to symptoms, such as alphin fever, and received KRW 13,100,681 in total from the Plaintiff.

The details of the insured events, such as the insurance money paid to the Defendant by the Plaintiff, the name of the diagnosis and the number of hospitalization days, shall be as specified in attached Table 3.

C. In addition, from October 10, 2014 to November 5, 2014, the Defendant hospitalized at C Hospital for 27 days due to symptoms, such as protruding symptoms, and filed a claim with the Plaintiff for a total of KRW 1,080,000 of the cost of hospitalization for disease. ② On March 29, 2015, the Defendant was diagnosed as having suffered disability due to the same accident as indicated in attached Form 2 “the content of the insurance accident” and claimed for the insurance proceeds for the remaining disability, and the Plaintiff still did not pay the insurance proceeds.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 3 through 8 (if there are virtual numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, in addition to the instant insurance contract, concluded multiple insurance contracts with other insurance companies. The Defendant did not conclude the instant insurance contract to cope with risks to his own life, body, etc., but concluded the instant insurance contract with a view to wrongfully acquiring insurance proceeds through multiple insurance contracts. Therefore, the instant insurance contract is null and void contrary to good morals and other social order. Furthermore, the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment is null and void. Furthermore, the Defendant’s total amount of insurance proceeds received from the Plaintiff according to the instant insurance contract null and void as above.