B. Method of interpreting the intentions of the parties expressed in the disposal document

(c) elements that determine the legal nature of the fraternity;

(d) The relationship between the legal nature of the successful bidder and the calculation of his fraternitys, the deposit amounts, etc.;

B. In interpreting the intent of the parties expressed in the disposition document, the motive and background of the agreement in addition to the content of the text, the purpose to achieve the agreement by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules.

C. The guidance differs in its legal nature according to the purpose and method of organization, the method of paying the benefits, the method of paying the benefits, the method of paying the benefits before and after the payment, the existence of the guidance and the relationship between the guidance and the guidance or the guidance, and any other issues, even though the same amount of money is the benefit.

D. The successful bidder does not have the nature of the so-called partnership agreement under the Civil Act, which operates a joint business by mutual investment as a member of each fraternity, but rather is to operate a system as a personal business. In the above-mentioned guidances, the calculation relationship between the fraternity and each fraternity exists individually. Thus, there is no room for a problem of dissolution or liquidation under the premise that the fraternity has the nature of partnership.

1. Summary of the judgment below

The court below found that the plaintiff and the defendant subscribed to the bid price of 20,000 won for the above 20,000 won organized by the non-party 1 on February 26, 191, and the above 20,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 20,00 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 9,00 won for the above 10,000 won for the above 9,00 won for the above 9,00 won for the above 19,00 won for the above 19,00 won for the above 9,00 won for the above 19,00 won for the above 9,00 won for the above 19,00 won for the above 1,000 won for the above 19,00 won for the defendant's 16,000 won for the above 19.

The Plaintiff, at the time of the above contract, had a large amount of loan claims unrelated to the above successful bid price. However, in order to secure the payment of the above loan claims, the Plaintiff offered convenience to the Defendant, instead of offering the Defendant’s future payment guarantee, the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s and Nonparty 1’s guarantee request for the above loan claims against the Defendant from Nonparty 1 where the above successful bid price accounts were transferred. Since the above successful bid price accounts were sold, it was remarkably difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s above loan claims were to be paid to the Plaintiff on August 26, 191, which was not paid by the Defendant, and it was difficult to view that the above contract was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the above total amount of loan claims to the Plaintiff from the 14th advance payment period until September 26, 1992, and that the agreement was not concluded between the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and Nonparty 1, which was not paid to the Plaintiff for the above total amount of loan claims to the Plaintiff. The purport of the agreement was that the Defendant’s payment of the above total amount was not paid by the above 0th payment period.

2. However, as long as the content of a disposal document is acknowledged to be genuine, the court should recognize the existence and content of the above disposal document as stated in the agreement unless it is clear and acceptable to deny the entries therein (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu3075 delivered on June 12, 1990). The statement of evidence No. 1, which is a disposal document prepared between the plaintiff and the non-party 1, is "in case of delivery, without intention or negligence of the non-party 1, it is hard to view that the above disposal document was delivered to the plaintiff 2,50,00 won each month until the completion of the above disposal contract, and it is hard to view that the plaintiff's agreement was delivered to the non-party 1 for the above disposal of the loan by the non-party 1, and it is reasonable to interpret that the agreement was delivered to the non-party 1, as well as to the non-party 2's motive and intent to provide the loan to the non-party 1, as well as to the non-party 1.

There is reason to point this out.

3. In addition, even if the same amount of money is a payment, it differs from the purpose and method of organizing it, the method of paying the payment, the method of paying the payment before and after the payment, and the method of paying the payment, and the relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity or the fraternity (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1686, Mar. 22, 1983). According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the successful bidder of this case is not a member of the mutual investment association, but a member of the mutual investment association operating the system on his own business, not a member of the mutual investment association, with the nature of the so-called contract under the Civil Act, which operates the joint business. In the above nature of the above, the calculation relationship between the fraternity and the fraternity exists individually between the fraternity and each member of the company. Thus, there is no room for see Supreme Court Decision 82Da2886, Feb. 28, 1982.

Thus, even if the fraternity of this case was sold, the defendant who has already been awarded the successful bid price does not have any influence on the duty to pay the agreed limit amount, unless otherwise specified at the time of the successful bid organization, but the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the contract was liquidated in the manner of paying the limit amount as it is, and that it was not liquidated in such a manner, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legal nature of the successful bid price system.

It is reasonable to point out this issue.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)