beta
(영문) 대법원 2016.05.12 2015다220382

건물위탁관리계약존재확인

Text

The judgment below

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

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As long as a disposal document is deemed to have been duly formed, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement;

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on June 28, 2002, and Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23482, April 26, 2012, 201; 201Da105867, Apr. 26, 2012, etc.), the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant contract on November 4, 2009 and notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract under Article 2 of the instant contract, “The contract period shall be three years from the date of the contract (from December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2012),” “Where one of the parties has not expressed any separate intent on this contract two months prior to the expiration of the contract period, the contract shall be automatically extended under the same condition (paragraph (4))” and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract on August 17, 2012.

However, the lower court publicly announced the contract term of the instant building management consignment agreement as five years pursuant to the initial management rules, but at the time, the Defendant directly manages the instant building, and only entered into an entrusted management agreement with an external company upon entering into the instant contract, and thus, it appears that the contract term of the instant contract would be changed to three years since the first time imposes a burden on setting the contract term for a prolonged period of five years from the beginning (hereinafter “assessment”). (2) The Plaintiff anticipated the contract term of the instant contract to be five years pursuant to the public notice of selection and the building management rules of the instant case, and submit a written estimate accordingly.