logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.12.23 2015다228553
채무부존재확인
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The 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 objectively and uniformly interpreted on the basis of average customer's understandability without taking into account the intended purpose and intent of the individual contracting parties. Even after such interpretation, in cases where the meaning of the standardized contract is not clear, such as objectively and objectively interpreted and the relevant standardized contract is reasonable, it shall be interpreted favorably to customers. However, in light of the purpose and purpose of the standardized contract in question, it is difficult to interpret the standardized contract in a fair, reasonable, and objective and uniform manner based on average customer's understandability.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5120 Decided September 9, 2010. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, according to the special terms and conditions of automobile driving security (hereinafter “the special terms and conditions of this case”) among the automobile comprehensive insurance contracts that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “the Defendant”) concluded with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) with the Plaintiff as the husband B, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be an insured automobile, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to be the insured automobile under the general terms and conditions. However, the term “other automobiles” in the special terms and conditions refers to the term “the insured and his parents, spouse or children are not owned or used normally,” and the term “insured” refers to the name and spouse of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant jointly owns E and D, a Sindong, as the Sindong.

arrow