All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where the content of a contract between the parties to the contract is written in writing, which is a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent shall be recognized in the absence of special circumstances: Provided, That where the objective meaning of the text is not clearly expressed, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, common sense of society, and common sense of trade, to accord with the ideology of social justice and equity, by comprehensively examining the motive and background behind the conclusion of the contract, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties to the contract, trade practices, etc. regardless of the parties’ internal intent, in a case where the objective meaning of

In particular, more strict interpretation of the language and text should be made in cases where the content of a contract claimed by one party imposes significant responsibilities on the other party or infringes on or limits important rights, such as ownership.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da14115 Decided June 26, 2014). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that it was difficult to view that the Defendants subscribed to fire insurance guaranteeing the damage or liability that the Plaintiff would incur, or that the Defendants was obligated to add the Plaintiff as the insured of the fire insurance subscribed by the Defendants.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the interpretation of expression of intent, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in

On the other hand, the second ground for appeal pertains to the judgment of the court below as to whether the family register is appropriate.

As long as the above judgment of the court below is justified, the legitimacy of this part of the judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.