[1] Whether there is room for applying the principle of disadvantage to the author in a case where a standardized contract clause is interpreted on a daily basis as a result of an objective and uniform interpretation based on the possibility of understanding an average customer in light of the principle of disadvantage to the author and the purpose of the standardized contract (negative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where the clause of the insurance contract that Gap concluded with Eul insurance company provides that "the diagnosis and confirmation of cancer shall be based on the present opinion, such as organizational tests, etc., by medical doctors, and where clinical diagnosis is not possible, clinical diagnosis shall be admitted as evidence of cancer," the case holding that the judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the insurance contract in light of the objective meaning of the above clause, in a case where the article of the insurance contract in question, which was concluded with Eul insurance company, provides that "the diagnosis and confirmation of cancer shall be based on the present opinion, such as organizational tests, etc., by medical doctors, and where clinical diagnosis is not possible, it may be viewed that the form of the paper of the contract in question is equivalent to the clinical mal, but it does not fall under the malinological mal martic martic s

[1] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act / [2] Article 5 of the Regulation of Standardized Contracts Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da81633 Decided May 28, 2009, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5120 Decided September 9, 2010 (Gong2010Ha, 1863), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da60305 Decided December 9, 2010 (Gong201Sang, 100) Supreme Court Decision 201Da92841 Decided January 12, 2012

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Agricultural Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Yoon Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2017Na35995 decided December 21, 2017

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. An insurance contract shall be interpreted fairly and reasonably in light of the purpose and purpose of the contract in question in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith, but it shall be interpreted objectively and uniformly in consideration of the interests of the entire insurance organization based on the average customer, without taking into account the intended purpose and intent of the individual contracting party. Even after such interpretation, in cases where the meaning of the contract is not clear, such as where the provision is objectively and objectively interpreted and its respective interpretation is reasonable, it shall be interpreted favorably to customers (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da81633, May 28, 2009; 2009Da60305, Dec. 9, 2010; 2009Da60305, Dec. 12, 2010). However, if the provision of the contract is interpreted fairly and reasonably based on the objective and purpose of the contract in question, and objectively and uniformly based on the average customer understanding, there is no room to interpret the provision in question in favor of customers (see, etc.

2. The lower court determined that even though it is difficult to completely recover from the instant species through the surgery, it is highly likely that the instant species were unable to completely recover from the surgery, and that there was a psychotropic disorder, it cannot be deemed that the instant species do not constitute “cryp” as stipulated in the insurance terms

A. According to the insurance clause of this case, the diagnosis and confirmation of cancer should be based on the current opinion on tissue testing, etc. by a doctor of pathology, and when clinical diagnosis is not possible, clinical diagnosis is admitted as evidence of cancer. The type of the instant case can be seen as equivalent to clinical malutical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical malphical m

B. The relevant provision of the instant insurance contract provides that the determination of cancer diagnosis by means of other evidence accompanied by clinical diagnosis shall be subject to exceptional and supplementary insurance proceeds only when it is based on the payment of insurance money in principle and only when it is not possible to conduct clinical diagnosis. The objective meaning of the said provision is difficult to interpret that the relevant provision of the instant insurance contract also includes the payment of insurance proceeds in light of the risk, etc. even if it is apparent that it is a type of scarmatic training, the said provision does not fall under the case where the relevant provision of the instant insurance contract does not fall under the case where the principle of disadvantage for its maker is applied.

C. Unless the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract that “the insurance money shall be paid in consideration of the malicious species as to the species of dangerous cultivation that correspond to the malicious species,” the insurance money cannot be paid in contravention of the agreement simply with the risk alone. Such interpretation may lead to a very unclear and arbitrary extension or reduction of the grounds for the payment of insurance money.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the insurance terms of this case, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da19940 Decided July 12, 2002 cited in the ground of appeal is not appropriate to be invoked in this case, unlike this case.

4. 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 Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)