1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification or addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A corrected or added portion;

A. ① In the first instance court’s second instance court’s first instance court’s second instance judgment, “each entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3” shall be amended to “each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers)” and ② In the fifth instance court’s second instance judgment, “the results of each entry in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5 and the appraiser E” shall be amended to “the results of each entry in the evidence Nos. 3 and 10, the results of the first instance court’s entrustment of the medical records to the head of the second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s “the results of each entry in the evidence Nos. 4, 3, and 4, and the results of the appraiser E’s appraisal of the first instance court’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s second instance judgment’s fifth judgment’.

(b)in addition, between 6th and 12th decisions of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

In the first instance, the Plaintiff asserts that the species diagnosed by the Defendant fall under the boundaryal species under the Korean Standard Disease Death Classification stipulated in the insurance contract of this case, and that they do not fall under the category of 'brutal life of the fire extinguishing agency', but do not fall under the category of Maternal Life of the fire extinguishing agency.

However, the legal doctrine that “the terms and conditions of an insurance contract shall be objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of the average customer’s understandability, and, even after such interpretation, in cases where the meaning of the terms and conditions is not clear, such as where the terms and conditions are objectively and objectively interpreted and their respective interpretations are reasonable, it shall be interpreted favorably to the customer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da60305, Dec. 9, 2010).”