1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff concluded each insurance contract with the Defendant with the same content as the attached Table 1 list.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant insurance contract” in combination with each of the above insurance contracts.

After entering into the instant insurance contract from August 1, 2005 to November 24, 2014, the Defendant received hospitalized treatment for about seven hundred (700) days in total, from the date of entering into the instant insurance contract, for which the Plaintiff paid KRW 73,475,654 to the Defendant under the instant insurance contract.

C. From December 20, 199 to July 13, 2005, the Defendant concluded a total of 21 insurance contracts with multiple insurance companies including the Plaintiff as the insured, and the details are as shown in the attached Table 2 insurance contract execution details.

The Defendant received insurance money equivalent to KRW 400,000,000 according to the said insurance contract including the instant insurance contract from August 1, 2005 to February 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7; Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including numbers, if any, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); the fact inquiry result of the court of first instance to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service of the first instance; the fact inquiry result of the court's fact inquiry about F; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 as to the Plaintiff’s primary assertion is as follows: (a) during a short period of time, the Defendant concluded various insurance contracts with coverage similar to the instant insurance contract, even though there was no revenue to the extent of paying the premium, and (b) received a considerable amount of insurance money after repeatedly receiving hospitalized treatment in circumstances where there

Therefore, the insurance contract of this case is concluded for the purpose of unfairly acquiring insurance money by the defendant, and is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the defendant is entitled to the insurance money paid to the plaintiff.