[2] The method of interpreting the parts inconsistent with each other among the contents of a contract in the case where multiple contracts stipulating different contents are successively prepared regarding a single legal relationship, but the parties do not clearly specify the legal relationship or friendly relationship under the contract

[3] In a case where Gap, while entering into a lease contract for leasing part of a commercial building from Eul, set the lease period for five years, and thereafter Gap and Eul, changed the contents of the above lease contract, and made a different four lease contracts in sequence, the case holding that the judgment below did not err by misapprehending legal principles in holding that the lease period is five years from the date of commencement of lease stipulated in the most recent lease contract among the above four lease contracts, in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the above last lease contract

[2] In a case where multiple contracts with different contents are successively prepared on a single legal relationship, if the parties clearly stipulate the legal relationship or friendly relationship under such contracts, such a provision shall take effect. However, if the legal relationship, etc. under multiple contracts are not clearly established, it is reasonable to interpret that the content of the contract has been modified as stated in the last written contract, in principle, as to the portion that is inconsistent with one another among the contents specified in each contract.

[3] In a case where Gap and Eul set the lease term five years when they lease a part of the commercial building from Eul, and thereafter, Gap and Eul set up four lease contracts with different contents about the lease area, lease term, monthly rent, and special agreement with different contents while they change the contents of the above lease contract, the case holding that the judgment below erred by misapprehending legal principles as to the lease term since Gap and Eul did not dispute the fact that the third lease contract was made for the purpose of submitting the third lease contract to the tax office, but only Eul did they claim that the last lease contract (hereinafter referred to as the "fourth lease contract") was made falsely, and the fact that Eul's evidence or assertion corresponds to Eul's argument cannot be deemed as a lease contract if the fourth lease contract was made falsely, and considering the fact that the fourth lease term is stipulated as the special agreement of the fourth lease contract, Gap and Eul set up two lease term extended the lease term for eight years, and they newly set up the lease term for five years by reducing the lease term to five years, and they did not set the lease term as a five-year lease term.

1. Factual basis

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

A. On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff, from the Defendant, leased approximately KRW 60 (0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000) from the second and second floors of the commercial building in Nam-gu, Gwangju ( Address omitted), as the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,00

B. After that, on December 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the contents of the instant lease agreement, and prepared four lease agreements in which the contents of the leased area, lease term, monthly rent, and special agreement are different in sequence. Of them, the third lease agreement made out in the order of the tax office is prepared in a false way.

C. On October 2, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the absence of intent to renew the lease agreement by content-certified mail. On November 19, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the instant lease agreement period from December 25, 2010 to 8 (96 months) and from December 26, 2015 to KRW 200 million and KRW 14 million, respectively, by content-certified mail.

D. From December 31, 2015 to January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the removal construction of the facility within the “○○○○○○○ △△△△△△△△△△△△△”. On January 26, 2016, the Plaintiff returned the key to the Defendant by refusing to receive the leased portion and sending the key. However, on February 4, 2016, the Defendant returned the key to the Defendant, while the key was not expired.

E. From August 2013 to around 150 to 200 meters away from the leased part of the instant case, the Plaintiff opened a business of “○○○○○○○ △△△△△△△△△” separate from “○○○ ○○ ○○○ △△△△△△△△△” and continues to operate a business until now.

F. The leased portion of the instant case remains in a factory laboratory up to now. As of January 31, 2016, the rent that the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant is KRW 41.8 million.

2. Whether the content of a contract should be determined in accordance with one of multiple lease agreements (ground of appeal No. 1)

A. As long as the establishment 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 and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the statement. In a dispute over the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties concerned, where interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document becomes an issue, the court shall reasonably interpret the document in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties’ genuine intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002; 2014Da1976, Feb. 15, 2017).

In a case where multiple contracts with different contents are made in succession regarding a single legal relationship, if the parties clearly stipulate the legal relationship or the friendly relationship under such contracts, it shall take effect as such. However, if the legal relationship, etc. under multiple contracts are not clearly prescribed, it is reasonable to interpret that the content of the contract has been modified in principle as stipulated in the last written contract, in principle, as regards the portion that is incompatible with each other among the contents specified in each contract.

B. For the following reasons, the lower court determined that the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 31, 201, on the grounds that the term of the instant lease agreement was five years (60 months) from January 1, 201, in accordance with the language and text written in the last four lease agreements (hereinafter “fourth lease agreement”) from January 1, 201, and that the term of the instant lease agreement expired on December 31, 2015.

There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the authenticity of four lease contracts prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the third lease contracts were made by falsity. The remaining three lease contracts are equal to KRW 100 million, but there is a difference between the lease area, lease term, monthly rent, or special agreement. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the fourth lease contract was made by falsity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The confirmation of the purport that the eight-year lease term as asserted by the Defendant meets the eight-year lease term, is not a direct brokerage at the time of the instant lease contract or a direct witness at the site, but it cannot be concluded that the fourth lease contract was made by falsity only in light of the relationship between the originator and the Defendant. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s statement on the developments leading up to the fourth lease term, the date of the lease as the special agreement of the fourth lease contract is stipulated on January 1, 201, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant newly prepared the lease term by extending the lease area on December 1, 2010.

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the lower judgment is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity

3. Whether lessee’s duty to restore is fulfilled (ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 3)

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff, on January 5, 2016, removed all the facilities from the leased premises of this case, and transferred the leased premises of this case to the Defendant by returning the key to the Defendant on January 26, 2016.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on restitution and delivery, without exhausting all necessary deliberations, as

4. Conclusion

The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)