[2] Where the insured, etc. under the fire insurance general terms and conditions of a contract forges documents or manipulates evidence, the method of interpreting and applying the standardized contract to the effect that they lose their right to claim insurance money, and whether the insured, etc. may lose their right to claim insurance money in accordance with the above standardized contract even if the specific contents are submitted or reported to a somewhat raise the value of the subject

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff intentionally caused the insurance accident of this case in order to avoid the insurance money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court Decision pointing this out in the ground of appeal is different from this case and cannot be applied as it is to this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 20 subparag. 1 of the Defendant’s Terms and Conditions of Fire Insurance provides that “where the contractor or the insured intentionally states different particulars from the fact in the documents concerning notification of damages or claims for insurance money, or such documents or evidence are forged or altered, the insured shall lose its insurance claim against the damage.” The Defendant’s general terms and conditions of fire insurance include the cause of the insurance accident, situation, degree of damage, etc. for determining whether the insurer is liable for compensation under the insurance contract, determination of compensation amount, etc. However, materials related thereto are mostly located within the area of control and management of the contractor or the insured (hereinafter “insured”), it is highly necessary to provide the insured with accurate information, and thus, it should be deemed that the insured would lose its insurance claim as a sanction to the extent that it is unreasonable to reasonably interpret the terms and conditions of the insurance contract to the extent that it is unreasonable to interpret the terms and conditions of the insurance contract to the extent that it would be unreasonable for the insured to reasonably lose its function by means of forging documents or manipulating evidence against them (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da2374, Nov. 23, 207, 2006

Based on such legal principles, the court below held that it is difficult to see the loss of insurance claim in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of this case merely because the plaintiff submitted some exaggerated data to the defendant's adjuster in relation to the value of the machinery as stated in the judgment below, based on the following circumstances: (a) the price of the machinery as stated in the plaintiff's certificate of sales fact, etc. is KRW 165,00,000; (b) the actual appraisal price is KRW 153,00,000; and (c) the actual appraisal price is not large; and (d) according to the defendant's terms and conditions, the defendant's and the defendant's adjuster can determine the actual amount of damages through appraisal or market research, etc. without being bound to the amount entered in the documents submitted by the plaintiff; and (b) the plaintiff did not submit the documents stating the false information of the fire caused by the fire of

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles concerning the interpretation and application of the contract clause in this case.

The Supreme Court precedents that are favorable in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and they cannot be applied as they are in this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Hyun-chul (Presiding Justice)