The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, an interpretation of a legal act is to determine the objective meaning that a party gave to the act of indicating it. Although it is not subject to the phrase used in writing, it shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning given by the party to the act of indicating it according to the contents of the written statement regardless of the party’s inner intent. In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed in the language indicated by the party, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and social common sense and transaction norms so that it conforms to the ideology of social justice and equity, comprehensively takes into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstance leading up to the act of expressing it, the purpose and genuine intent of the party to

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005). Such a legal doctrine ought to be equally applied to cases where a dispute arises as to the interpretation of the conciliation clause after the conciliation was concluded between the parties.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the conciliation clause of this case provides that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 7 million up to December 18, 2009, and if the payment is not made by the due date, the delay damages shall be paid in addition to the damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum from the day after the due date to the day of full payment,” and the conciliation clause of this case provides that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 7 million up to December 18, 2009, and if the payment is not made by the due date, the unpaid amount shall be paid by adding the damages for delay calculated at 20% per annum from the day after the due date to the due date to the due date of the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the money shall be liable for the damages for delay, and it does not state that the Defendant shall bear the obligation for delay on the condition that the Defendant fulfilled