[1] In case of non-life insurance, only the subject matter of the insurance and the type of risk are determined, and the insured and the insured's interest are not clear, the standard of determining the insured

[2] The principle of interpreting terms and conditions

[3] In the interpretation of the insurance clause to the effect that where the insured et al. claims a false insurance claim, where the insured et al. made a false claim more than the actual loss with respect to part of the several independent insurance objects, whether the insured may lose the insurance claim with respect to other insurance objects which did not make a false claim (negative)

[1] In case of non-life insurance, only the subject matter and risk type of the insurance are determined, and where the insured and the insurable interests are unclear, whether the insurance contract is for the policyholder itself or for the other party shall be determined by taking into account all the circumstances such as the content of the insurance contract and the terms and conditions which the parties make into account, the process and process of the conclusion of the insurance contract, and the practice of the insurance company

[2] The content of a standardized contract shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of the average customer's understanding potential without considering the intent or specific circumstances of the individual contractor. If the content of a standardized contract is not clear or doubtful in terms of customer protection, it shall be limited and interpreted favorably to the customer in favor of the customer.

[3] The purport of the terms and conditions of an insurance contract which provides that "where the policyholder or the insured intentionally states different facts in the documents concerning notification of damages or claim for insurance money, or such documents or evidence are forged or altered, the insured shall lose the right to claim for damages." The insured claims excessive insurance money in a fraudulent manner contrary to the principle of trust and good faith, such as forging documents or manipulating evidence, etc. In a case where the insured, etc. claims excessive insurance money in a fraudulent manner. In a fire insurance contract concluded with several independent articles as the subject of insurance, where the insured claims excessive damages than the actual damages, it is natural to lose the right to claim insurance money under the above provisions regarding the subject matter of insurance which has made a false claim. However, if the above terms and conditions are interpreted to the effect that the insured would lose its right to claim for insurance money in a case where the insured claims excessive amount of damages to the subject matter of insurance of which he did not make a false claim, it would be unreasonable to interpret it as a sanction against false claims to the effect that it would unfairly be more unfavorable to the customer.

[1] Articles 639 and 665 of the Commercial Act / [2] Article 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions / [3] Article 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, Articles 658 and 683 of the Commercial Act, Article 2(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da14800 delivered on May 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 1992), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da29769 Delivered on November 10, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 19), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da33496 Delivered on January 24, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 714) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da1209 Delivered on June 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2306), Supreme Court Decision 98Da20752 delivered on October 23, 199 (Gong198Ha, 2730), Supreme Court Decision 2005Da326384 delivered on October 26, 205) / [306Da206385 delivered on June 26, 2005]

Plaintiff (Attorney Shin Shin-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Dong Fire & Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Vindication et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na65601 Delivered on September 29, 2006

Of the judgment of the court below, the dismissed part of the judgment below and the plaintiff's insurance claim on the buildings and facilities under the comprehensive business safety insurance contract against the defendant Dongdong Fire Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and the part on the plaintiff's insurance claim on the building and facilities under the comprehensive new security insurance contract against the defendant Heung-Jung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the action.

The court below rejected the part of the lawsuit of this case against the defendant Dongdong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Dongdong Fire") concerning the 11,370,550 won among the insurance claims under the comprehensive business safety insurance contract against the defendant Dongdong Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant Dongdong Fire"), as long as the non-party 1 already received a seizure and collection order from the court on April 14, 2004 concerning the above part, and the above order was served on the defendant Dongdong Fire, etc. around that time, the above order was served on the defendant Dongdong Fire, the non-party 1 can file a lawsuit for performance concerning the above part, and the plaintiff lost the standing to institute a performance lawsuit.

However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below that the above part of the lawsuit is unlawful for the following reasons.

According to the records, each insured of each of the instant insurance contracts is Nonparty 2 of the Plaintiff’s husband, and Nonparty 2 transferred the insurance claim against the Defendants to the Plaintiff on October 31, 2005, and notified the Defendants of the purport of the transfer of the above insurance claim on the same day. Thus, the Plaintiff merely acquired the insurance claim only on the above day, and cannot be deemed to have established the insurance claim, which is the seized claim, at the time when the order of seizure and collection was served. Thus, the pertinent claim seizure and collection order is null and void.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the plaintiff lost the standing to file a performance suit against the 11,370,550 won due to the above claim seizure and collection order, on the erroneous premise that the above claim seizure and collection order were valid, and that the plaintiff lost the standing to file a performance suit against the 11,370,550 won. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of facts as to the existence of the standing to file a lawsuit, and it

2. In case of non-life insurance, only the subject matter of the insurance and the type of risk are determined, and where the insured and the insurable interests are unclear, whether the insurance contract is for the policyholder or for another person shall be determined in consideration of all the circumstances such as the content of the insurance contract and the terms and conditions which the parties consider as the content of the insurance contract, the process and process of the conclusion of the insurance contract by the parties, and the practice of the insurance company, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da14800, May 30, 1997; 2002Da33496, Jan. 24, 2003, etc.).

After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that all the insured persons with respect to buildings, facilities, and movables which are each subject matter of each insurance contract of this case are non-party 2. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and decision are just and acceptable, and it cannot be said that there are errors in matters of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or in misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the decision

3. After compiling the admitted evidence, the lower court determined that: (a) Nonparty 2, the insured of each of the instant insurance contracts, submitted to the Defendants the false statement of transaction, etc., in which the amount of sales was stated excessively from customers in connection with movables among the subject matters of each of the instant insurance contracts, as evidentiary documents, and claimed insurance proceeds in the amount of damages up to 1.7 times the amount of damages for the real movables; and (b) Nonparty 2 lost its right to claim insurance against the Defendants as stipulated in each of the instant insurance contracts; and (c) the effect of the loss was not limited to the right to claim insurance against the movables, but also the right to claim insurance against the building and facilities.

However, the lower court’s determination that not only claims against movable property but also claims against buildings and facilities were lost is unacceptable for the following reasons.

The contents of the terms and conditions shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of the average customer's understanding potential without considering the intent or specific circumstances of individual contract-holders. When the contents of the terms and conditions are not clear or doubtful in terms of customer protection, they shall be limited and interpreted favorably to the customer and unfavorably to the person who prepared the terms and conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da12009, Jun. 25, 1996; 2005Da35226, Oct. 28, 2005).

Each of the terms and conditions of each of the instant insurance contracts provide that "where the policyholder or the insured intentionally states different facts from the fact in the documents concerning the notice of damage or the claim for insurance money, or such documents or evidence are forged or altered, the insured shall lose the right to claim insurance against the damage." The purport of such terms and conditions is to impose sanctions against the insured, etc. in a case where the insured, etc. claims excessive insurance money in a fraudulent manner contrary to the principle of good faith by forging documents or manipulating evidence, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2027, 20234, Nov. 23, 2006, etc.). However, in a fire insurance contract concluded with independent goods as the subject matter of insurance, where the insured makes a false claim more than actual damage to the subject matter of the insurance, it is natural to lose the right to claim insurance in accordance with the aforementioned provisions regarding the subject matter of insurance, which has made a false claim against the customer, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the insured would lose the right to claim insurance money unfairly beyond the principle of good faith.

Therefore, in accordance with the principle of interpretation of the terms and conditions as seen earlier, it is reasonable to interpret that the right to claim the loss of the insured under the above terms and conditions refers to the right to claim the loss of the insurance subject matter in question.

Nevertheless, as stated in its holding, the court below determined that Non-party 2, the insured non-party 2, filed a false claim more than the actual damage to movable property among the subject matter of insurance, and the non-party 2, as well as the movable property, lost all the rights to claim for the building and facilities, which are the subject matter of insurance, in accordance with the above terms and conditions clause at once. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

4. Regarding the scope of reversal, the part of the judgment below's rejection of the suit should be reversed, and the plaintiff's insurance claims against the defendants relating to movable property among the insurance claims under each of the insurance contracts in this case against the defendants should be lost. Thus, among the judgment below, the part concerning the plaintiff's insurance claims on buildings and facilities under the comprehensive social safety insurance contract against the defendant's Dong-dong Fire and the part concerning the plaintiff's insurance claims on the building and facilities under the comprehensive social safety insurance contract against the defendant's Han-dong Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. should be reversed

5. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed within the scope above, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and the remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)