logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.08.21 2013나10329
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for any addition under the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s determination on the argument that the court emphasizes in particular or unfolds; and (b) thereby cites it pursuant

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In order to diagnose the Defendant as “profescing”, the Defendant should have investigated the point of time of the Defendant’s development. It is only called GnnnRH inspection (hereinafter “GnnRH inspection”) of reproductive dyschogens emitted from productive organs.

2) The Defendant’s diagnosis of “launching” against the Defendant who did not undergo the diagnosis does not comply with the standard of diagnosis. 2) The treatment method of “launching” diagnosed by the Defendant is administered by the unreproductive dypHa (hereinafter “GnnRHa”) and is not the treatment method of “launching” in which only a grow-manmon system is administered solely.

B. 1) Interpretation of a standardized contract shall be interpreted fairly and reasonably in light of the purpose and purpose of the standardized contract in question in accordance with the principle of trust and good faith, and it shall be interpreted objectively and uniformly on the basis of average customer's understanding potential without considering the purpose and intent of each party to the contract. Even after such interpretation, in cases where the meaning of the standardized contract is not clear, such as the provision 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). However, the standardized contract for medical expenses for the insurance of this case provides that "the insured is compensated in cases where the insured has received treatment or has received prescription through a hospital due to disease."

arrow