채무부존재확인
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the assertion, such as misapprehension of the legal principle as to the literature and omission of judgment as to the duty to explain important contents
A. As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the document. In a case where there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the document in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by
(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482 delivered on June 28, 2002, etc.). B.
In full view of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the sales contract in this case cannot be construed as the purport that the part concerning the settlement of the final sale price in Article 2 (1) of the sales contract in this case is merely an example, and it cannot be construed as the purport of rejecting or resolving only the area of the sale site which has been expanded. The lower court determined that the above provision, which the Plaintiff received through a reasonable judgment, cannot be deemed as null and void as a clause which becomes null and void as it becomes invalid as it
C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending
Furthermore, Article 2(1) of the contract for sale of this case is made.