[2] In a case where the ordinary terms and conditions of the insurance contract concluded by Gap with Eul insurance company provide that, in principle, where not less than two secondary disabilities have occurred due to the same accident, the payment rate of the subsequent disability shall be added, and where not less than two disabilities have occurred on the same physical part, the higher payment rate shall apply; however, the payment rate shall be calculated by adding up the payment rate of the next disability to the right side, the sum of the payment rate for the secondhand, the right hand and the left side hand and the payment rate of the subsequent disability of Gap should be higher, and the payment rate of the subsequent disability should be calculated by adding up the payment rate of the physical part and the payment rate of the new light sign, which is the sum of the payment rate for the physical part and the rate of the new light sign, which is the new light, which is the one which is the main obstacle to the new boundary, and the payment rate of the subsequent disability of Gap should be further calculated.

[2] In a case where the ordinary terms and conditions of the insurance contract concluded by Gap with Eul insurance company stipulate that, in principle, where not less than two secondary disabilities have occurred due to the same accident, the rate of payment of the remaining disability shall be added to the calculation of the rate of payment of such disability; however, the highest rate of payment of such disability shall apply to cases where not less than two disabilities have occurred on the same physical part; and that, “in cases where one disability is ordinarily derived from another disability or where another disability has occurred due to a new boundary, only the highest rate of payment shall apply to the remaining parts of the disability”; and in addition, the rate of payment of such disability shall be the highest rate of payment of new one disability after adding the rate of payment of such disability to the outer part of the physical part which is the highest rate of payment of new one disability, since the rate of payment of such disability shall be the highest rate of payment of new one disability after adding the rate of payment of such disability to the outer part of the above physical part, unless there are any special reasons to the contrary.

1. The insurance terms and conditions shall be interpreted fairly and reasonably in light of the purpose and purpose of the terms and conditions in good faith; however, they shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of the possibility of average customer interests, without taking into account the purpose and intent of each party to a contract; and even after such interpretation, in cases where the meaning of the terms and conditions is unclear, such as the multiple interpretation of the terms and conditions and the reasonableness of each interpretation thereof, it shall be interpreted favorably to customers (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da24347, May 12, 2016).

2. The court below found the following facts based on the evidence adopted.

(1) Around April 17, 2008, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) who is an insurance business entity entered into an insurance contract with the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) as the Defendant and entered into an insurance contract listed in attached Table 2 as indicated in the judgment of the lower court (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”).

(2) With respect to the calculation of the rate of payment of disability in the instant general terms and conditions of the insurance contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant terms and conditions”) the payment of disability shall be made by adding up the rate of payment of residual disability in the event there are two or more subsequent disabilities due to the same accident: Provided, That where the criteria for determining different parts of each part of the disability classification table (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disability classification table”) are separately prescribed, such criteria shall be observed at the risk of complying with those criteria (Article 17(6)), and where two or more different parts of the instant disability classification table have occurred on the same body part, the higher payment rate among them shall not be added: Provided, That the criteria for determining different parts of the instant disability classification table shall be determined at the risk of complying with those criteria, and the criteria for determining different parts of the instant disability classification shall be at least 1 per cent of the new disability classification table (Article 17(7)), as to the calculation of the rate of payment of remaining disability in the instant case’s physical condition.

(3) Around May 22, 2009, the Defendant was involved in an accident that took place in the singing stairs managed by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(4) Under the insurance contract of this case, the remaining disability suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case falls under ① a serious light signboard escape certificate (20% in spine), ② a light stale (13%) (13% in payment rate based on the disability evaluation table on daily living basic action limitation), ③ in the case of the right arms, when the defendant left a serious obstacle to the function of Section 1 in part out of the three joints of one arms (20% in payment rate), ④ in the case of the right hand hand hand hand, ④ in the case of the case of the right hand hand hand hand hand, when the five fingers of one hand are remarkably hindered (30% in payment rate), ⑤ in the case of the left hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand hand, the remaining part falls under 30% in each case (30% in payment rate), and (5) in the case of the case of the left hand hand hand hand hand hand hand, each part of this case shall be considered to fall under 30% in total (the above, 50% in total.

3. Based on the above factual basis, the lower court determined that ① the Defendant’s subsequent disability is ordinarily derived from the provision of this case’s provision, whereas it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s subsequent disability is ordinarily attributable to the occurrence of various playgrounds of this case due to the climatic damage, each of the playgrounds of this case’s sports fields of this case was derived from the climatic obstacle due to the climatic damage, and determined that the Defendant’s subsequent disability payment rate of 13% due to the climatic damage and 20% due to the climatic damage, the subsequent disability payment rate of 30% due to the climatic damage, the subsequent disability payment rate of 30% due to the climatic damage of this case’s physical disability, and 30% due to the climatic damage rate of 30% due to the above 4% due to the climatic damage after the climatic damage payment rate of this case’s 30% due to the above 30% subsequent disability payment rate.

4. However, the lower court’s determination on the payment rate of the remaining disability is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

(1) In principle, the terms and conditions of this case stipulate that the payment rate of the subsequent disability shall be added to the case where not less than 2 disabilities have occurred due to the same accident. In the case where not less than 2 disabilities have occurred on the same body part, the higher payment rate among them shall be applied except as otherwise prescribed in the criteria for determining each part of the disability classification table (Article 17(6) and (7) of the General Terms and Conditions). In the case where not less than 2 disabilities have occurred on the same body part due to the same accident, it seems that the multiple disabilities should be calculated by adding up the payment rate of each subsequent disability to the calculation of insurance proceeds in principle, taking into account the fact that it is common to reduce the ability of both the two or more disabilities in the case where not less than 2 disabilities have occurred on the same body part (Article 17(6) and (7) of the General Terms and Conditions). On the other hand, the payment rate of the new disability should be applied to only the higher payment rate of the disability, which is to prevent the excessive payment rate of the new disability and seems to be reasonable.

In light of the purport of the terms and conditions of this case concerning the calculation of the rate of payment of the latter disability, the general provisions of the Disability Classification Table of this case provide that "one disability shall be applied only to two or more parts of the body or parts of the same body in accordance with the observation method, and where one disability is ordinarily derived from another one disability, only the higher payment rate shall be applied, respectively." In the standard for the determination of the new disability in this case, "any other parts of the body which may be caused by the disability in the new boundary shall be evaluated as the relevant disability, and the higher payment rate shall be applied." However, the meaning of the terms and conditions of this case is deemed to be an ordinary relation between a certain disability and another disability, or where a new one is caused by a disability in the other parts of the body, only the higher payment rate between the two parts shall be applied, and it is difficult to view that there is a normal relation between the parts and parts of the physical disability that are ordinarily derived from one another, and it is difficult to see that only the payment rate of the above parts of the physical disability is the highest one through the said new boundary clause.

In addition, the disability classification table of this case adopted the method of determining the rate of payment by evaluating the result of damage to the new boundary (the degree of basic action restriction on daily life) of the obstacles in the new boundary (the degree of daily life) by defining the meaning of "when one or more actions have been restricted due to damage to the 5th basic action of daily life due to brain, flood, and the end, while dividing the physical parts into 13 parts. In the case of the new boundary disorder, it is necessary to compare the evaluation table of basic action restriction on daily life with the other physical parts. In the case of the new boundary disorder of this case, it is not limited to 5 parts of the terms of this case. Thus, the standard of the contract of this case does not necessarily mean that the action necessary for daily life is not sufficient to fully reflect the actual action that has occurred due to the action of the new boundary as stipulated in the contract of this case.

Therefore, in full view of the contents and purport of the terms and conditions of this case, where not less than two residual disabilities have occurred on one another due to a new boundary disorder, the rate of payment of such subsequent disability shall be calculated by adding up all the rates of payment of the subsequent disability derived therefrom pursuant to Article 17(6) of the General Terms and Conditions after evaluating the rate of payment of the subsequent disability (the rate of payment on one side shall be limited to 60%), and it shall be reasonable to apply the higher rate of payment, compared with the rate of payment of the said new boundary disorder, as the rate of payment of the subsequent disability derived from the said new boundary disorder.

(2) Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s payment rate of the following disability due to the instant accident shall be 80% of the aggregate payment rate for each of the playgrounds of this case (as 20% of the upper right hand hand + 30% of the upper left hand hand + 30%) and 13% of the payment rate for the light hand hand scamscamscams which are the higher payment rate among 80% of the total payment rate for each of the playgrounds of this case, which is 80% of the total payment rate for each of the playgrounds of this case.

(3) Nevertheless, the lower court did not compare the payment rate of individual residual disability in each of the playgrounds of this case with the payment rate of individual residual disability in each of the playgrounds of this case, but rather compared with the payment rate of individual residual disability in each of the playgrounds of this case and the payment rate of the residual disability in the light of the lusium, which is the above new boundary disorder, the lower court calculated the Defendant’s payment rate of the remaining disability due to the accident of this case as 50% by adding 20% of the payment rate of the remaining disability in the above lusical signboard escape certificate. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the terms and conditions, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

On the other hand, Supreme Court Decision 201Da68302 Decided November 10, 201 cited by the court below, where playgrounds have occurred on other physical parts due to a new boundary disorder, the rate of the payment of the follow-up disability of all the above obstacles shall be determined in accordance with the criteria for determining the payment of the follow-up disability of this case by reflecting the fact that the playgrounds have arisen from a new boundary disorder. As such, it is necessary to separately calculate the rate of the payment of follow-up disability of the new boundary, which is the object of comparison with the rate of the payment of the follow-up disability of the playgrounds, in case where two or more playgrounds have occurred on different physical parts due to a new boundary disorder, it is not appropriate to calculate the rate of the payment of follow-up disability of this case, which is the issue (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da201776, Jun. 23, 2015).

5. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the part against the Defendant regarding the principal lawsuit and counterclaim is reversed, and that part of 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 Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)