beta
(영문) 대법원 2017.08.24 2017다223873

손해배상(기)

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the interpretation of a declaration of intention between the parties is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the said declaration of intention, the motive and background leading up to the said declaration of intention, the purpose to be achieved by

(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall consider the whole purport of the arguments and the result of the examination of evidence to determine whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act), and the facts duly confirmed by the court below that the judgment below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and that the court shall bind the Re-appeal Court.

(Article 432 of the same Act). Also, on the grounds of a written judgment, a judgment on allegations by the parties and on other means of offence and defense shall be indicated to the extent that it is possible to recognize that the text is justifiable, and it is not necessary to determine all the means of offence and defense by the

(Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a court’s ruling does not state a direct determination on the matters alleged by the parties, if it is possible to find out that the assertion was cited or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment, it cannot be said that

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da218 Decided July 10, 2008; 201Da87174 Decided April 26, 201, etc.). 2. The lower court, based on the reasons stated in its reasoning, is reasonable to deem that (1) the duty of delivery of the instant reinforcing relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant has been completed, and (2) the fact that some of the instant steel bars have not been supplied to the instant project site is reasonable.