Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning I and M are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal as to A and E-T T T-type vehicles

(a) An insurance contract is an infinite contract which takes effect when one of the parties pays the insurance premium agreed upon and the other party agrees to pay a certain amount of insurance money and other benefits in the event of an infinite accident with respect to property, life or body. Thus, the content of the contract is not necessarily limited to the provisions of

In addition, it is not because the terms and conditions have binding force between the parties to a contract, but rather because the parties agreed to include the provisions of the terms and conditions in the contents of the contract. In general, where an insurance contract which includes the terms and conditions in the terms and conditions of the contract has been made between the parties, the binding force of the terms and conditions shall not be excluded in principle, even if the parties are unaware of the contents of the contract, but where the parties have expressly agreed differently from the contents of the terms and conditions, the binding force of the terms and conditions shall not be excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Da4645, Mar. 28, 1989; 95Da47398, Sept. 5, 1997; 97Da3163, Oct. 13, 1998). Furthermore, the interpretation of a juristic act clearly establishes the objective meaning assigned to the expression of the parties to the contract, and there is any difference in the interpretation of the terms and conditions between the parties, the genuine intent and purpose of the juristic act should be reasonably examined.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da1142, Apr. 29, 1994; 201Da5134, Dec. 27, 2011). (B)

The lower court shall accept the reasoning of the first instance judgment.