1. In principle, the content of a general transaction agreement shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of the average customer's understanding potential without considering the intent or specific circumstances of each individual contractor, except where the contents of the terms and conditions are unclear or doubtful to customers in favor of customers in terms of customer protection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9294, 9300, May 28, 2009).

2. The court below held that the accident in this case occurred when the employee of the company loaded 25 tons of freight vehicles (hereinafter “the vehicle in this case”) operated by the defendant at the ○○○ Office of Gyeong-gun, Pacific District, and then the defendant loaded 25 tons of freight vehicles (hereinafter “the vehicle in this case”) and then the accident is falling into the ground (hereinafter “the accident in this case”), which occurred while the defendant loaded on the vehicle in this case with a cover of the strings and fastened the strings on the strings of the above strings (hereinafter “the accident in this case”) and caused injury, such as the strings on the left side in the course of the accident, the court below held that the accident in this case constitutes “the time when the cause for paying insurance money occurred during the loading and unloading work,” and that the defendant's employee's request for confirmation of non-payment of insurance money cannot be viewed as "the driver's prior loading and unloading work during the loading and unloading work" or "the driver's accident in this case is covered with the vehicle in this case."

3. However, according to evidence duly examined by the court below, (1) under the insurance contract of this case, when the insured under the insurance policy becomes a disability corresponding to 3 to 100% of the disability payment rate set forth in the disability classification table due to traffic injury to the driver during the insurance period period of the insurance contract, the "traffic injury to the driver" is required to pay an amount calculated by multiplying the payment rate set forth in the disability classification table by the amount of insurance coverage of ordinary terms and conditions. Here, the "traffic injury to the driver" refers to "any sudden and remote accident occurred while driving a motor vehicle", and "any sudden and remote accident occurred while driving a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle or on board a motor vehicle (including driving a motor vehicle)" refers to "any accident that occurs while driving a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle while driving a motor vehicle is in operation or on board (including any traffic accident that occurs while driving a motor vehicle)," the insurance money is to be paid without knowing whether it has occurred, whether it has stopped, or whether it has operated an engine, and any other traffic accident (including any traffic accident accident that occurred during the maintenance or repair of the motor vehicle.).

4. As seen earlier, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the accident occurred in the course of loading and unloading the instant vehicle, and the accident that occurred in the course of loading and unloading without driving the vehicle under the insurance contract of this case also constitutes a traffic injury to the driver. However, in the event that a cause for paying insurance money occurs during loading and unloading, the accident is not considered a traffic accident, and the damage therefrom is not considered a traffic accident, and the loading and unloading work is deemed to have been clearly excluded from the insurance accident in the event of an injury as a result of realizing such risk, apart from the traffic accident of the vehicle. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the accident occurred in the course of loading and unloading the instant vehicle as an average customer’s understanding possibility, and this constitutes “when the cause for paying insurance money occurs during loading and unloading work” as stipulated in the insurance contract of this case for the reason that the insurance contract of this case does not pay insurance money. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that such interpretation unfairly disadvantageous or unexpected disadvantage to the customer, and there is no doubt or doubt that the content of the insurance contract of this case cannot be construed more favorable to the customers.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the insurance contract, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The plaintiff's ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)