[2] The method of interpreting the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document

[3] In a case where Gap corporation, which is a harbor transport business entity governed by Article 10(2) of the Harbor Transport Business Act, agreed to pay retirement allowances 8.3% of the amount of rent prior to the so-called commercialization by directly employing the port manpower supply system, the case holding that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles in holding that Gap company and Eul union agreed to pay retirement allowances 8.3% of the amount of wages actually paid to the port workers, regardless of whether before and after commercialization, refers to 8.3% of the amount of wages actually paid to them

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Heavy Industries Corporation

Article 52(a) of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes the capacity of a non-corporate association as a party to a lawsuit, in the event that a non-corporate association has an entity as an association and is engaged in social activities or transactions through its representative or manager, disputes arising therefrom shall be resolved by the organization as a party to a lawsuit in its own name. Therefore, an association referred to in this context refers to a group of multiple persons organized for a certain purpose, with a provision regarding an organization externally representing an association. In addition, even if one of the subordinate organizations of an incorporated association is one of the above organizations, if it has the substance as above and is performing its independent activities, it shall be deemed an independent non-corporate group separate from the incorporated association (Supreme Court Decision 2006Da60908 Decided January 30, 2009).

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff was capable of being a non-corporate body separate from the Port Logistics Association, on the ground that the Plaintiff was an independent organization separate from the Port Logistics Association and separate organization, operational rules, budget and settlement of accounts, and that it was distinct from the Port Logistics Association.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to party capacity as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal by Defendant Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and the grounds of appeal by Defendant Digital Entertainment Co., Ltd

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the payment standards under such agreement could not have effect as the payment standards for retirement allowances, even if the “1.5% of the pre-paid fees” which is the criteria for the payment of retirement allowances under the authorized contents is maintained even after commercialization, and even if the Plaintiff agreed to pay the “8.3% of the pre-paid fees” with the retirement allowances from Incheon Port Trade Union and the retirement allowances at the time of commercialization, the payment standards under such agreement cannot have effect as the payment standards for retirement allowances.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the payment standards for retirement allowances under the authorized fee system, or by exceeding the bounds of

3. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Incheon Container Terminal Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Incheon Container Terminal”)

A. In the case of harbor transport business entities that are subject to reporting fees such as Defendant Incheon Container Terminal, the lower court: (a) established the relevant rate that the company had consulted with the Incheon Port Trade Union prior to commercialization as the criteria for the payment of retirement allowances; and (b) presumed that the criteria for the payment of retirement allowances prior to commercialization were maintained even after commercialization; (c) furthermore, Defendant Incheon Container Terminal agreed on June 29, 2004 the Incheon Port Trade Union and the “8.3% of the rent” as the criteria for the payment of retirement allowances (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (d) it is reasonable to deem that the “8.3% of the rent” as referred to in the instant agreement refers to 8.3% of the total quantity-based wage; and (e) therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the difference between the “8.3% of the total quantity-based wage” and the “8.3% of the total amount of rent.3% after commercialization.”

B. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

1) As long as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement. In the event that a dispute over the interpretation of a contract between the parties arises and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposal document becomes an issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the content of the text, motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent in accordance with logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002; 2014Da8543, 88550, Oct. 27, 2016).

2) Examining the following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, it is reasonable to view that Defendant Incheon Container Terminal and Incheon Port Trade Union agreed to “8.3% of the amount of wages actually paid to port workers” as the payment criteria for retirement allowances regardless of whether it was before or after commercialization.

A) The instant agreement, which is a disposal document prepared by Defendant Incheon Container Terminal and the Incheon Port Trade Union (Evidence B(3)), states the criteria for the payment of retirement allowances as “8.3% of the amount of rent.” It is natural to interpret that the “amount of rent” stipulated in the said agreement refers to the amount of wages actually paid by port workers.

B) Prior to commercialization, prior to the occurrence of imports of port workers in proportion to their quantities, there was no choice but to set the amount of wages to be the standard wages for retirement allowances as the standard wages. However, after commercialization, there was a reasonable need to set retirement allowances based on the amount of wages actually paid, regardless of the quantity, as the relationship in which port workers are regularly employed in a specific harbor transport business entity and are paid fixed wages in return for the provision of labor.

C) As of June 29, 2004, the commercialization of port workers as of June 29, 2004, the Defendant Incheon Container Terminal and the Incheon Port Trade Union agreed on the contents of the instant agreement in consideration of the subsequent commercialization. The Defendant Incheon Container Terminal and the Incheon Port Trade Union agreed on 8.3% of the amount of wages actually paid before and after commercialization in the process as the payment criteria for retirement allowances. However, there is no fixed amount of wages, regardless of quantity, until commercialization is made, it appears that the agreement was reached to calculate the amount of wages by the standard wage for the above period.

C. Nevertheless, solely based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court concluded that “8.3% of the amount of rent” stipulated in the instant agreement refers to “8.3% of the standard wage.” In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of a disposal document or the interpretation of the intent of the contracting parties, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit

4. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The lower court determined that Defendant 2, a corporation, engaged in harbor transport business at Incheon port after commercialization in 2009, and paid retirement allowances only at the request of the Port Logistics Association, there was no payment standard that was applied before commercialization, and therefore, Defendant 2, a corporation was not liable to pay retirement allowances in accordance with the second operational rules.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the duty to repay retirement allowances, or by exceeding the bounds of free evaluation

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Incheon Container Terminal is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Plaintiff’s appeal and the appeal by Defendant Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. and India Co., Ltd are all dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Park Jung-hwa (Presiding Justice)