Man who underwent corn removal surgery 379 times must return 17.84 million won, Supreme Court rules

A person who collected tens of millions of won in insurance payouts for corn and callus removal surgeries not covered under policy terms must return a portion of the money because the procedures fall under a policy exemption, the Supreme Court has ruled.

According to legal sources Sunday, the Supreme Court's Third Division, presided over by Justice Oh Seok-jun, upheld a lower court ruling against the plaintiff, identified only as A, in a lawsuit seeking insurance benefits from an insurer. The court also upheld the lower court's decision on the insurer's counterclaim, ordering A to return 17.84 million won of the approximately 34.94 million won (about $22,900) already paid out.

The case began after A signed an insurance contract with the company in July 2016 and subsequently underwent cryotherapy to remove corns and calluses 379 times at multiple hospitals between August of that year and November 2020, collecting 34.94 million won in insurance payments. The insurer covered only 114 of those procedures and refused the rest, then filed suit against A in 2017 seeking to void the contract and recover the money already paid. Courts at the time rejected the insurer's arguments, and that ruling became final.

A then filed a new lawsuit demanding payment for the unpaid claims, prompting the insurer to file a counterclaim. Both the first and second instance courts sided with the insurer, finding the contract void as contrary to public morals and, even if valid, ruling that corns and calluses did not qualify for coverage under the policy terms.

The Supreme Court departed from the lower courts on the question of whether the contract was void. It found that the increase in the number of surgeries was new evidence supporting the existing facts of the case, not a change in circumstances sufficient to overturn the binding effect of the earlier final ruling. The court reaffirmed the principle that res judicata can be set aside only when genuinely new facts arise — not merely when additional evidence is presented.

However, the outcome was the same. The Supreme Court held that corns and calluses constitute a skin condition under the policy terms, comparable to freckles, warts, birthmarks and acne, and that the insurer therefore had no obligation to pay. Because the lower court's legal error did not affect the result, the Supreme Court said its conclusion was correct.