Attorney Choi Choi-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kang Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Factual basis

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

A. On April 22, 2009, the Plaintiff, on the second floor and second floor located in Gwangju-gu ( Address omitted), operated a lease deposit with approximately KRW 100 million, KRW 60 million, KRW 60 million, KRW 600,000, KRW 600,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the lease term from April 22, 2009 to May 22, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract in this case"), and operated "the lease contract in this case")," which is a coffee specialty (trade 1 omitted).

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 instant lease agreement period was from December 25, 2010 to 8 (96 months). From December 26, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the lease deposit will be raised at KRW 200 million, monthly, and KRW 14 million, respectively. D. From December 31, 2015 to January 5, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the removal construction of the facilities within the “(trade name 1 omitted)” and the Plaintiff did not return the key to the Defendant, but did not return the key to the Defendant upon the expiration of the lease period. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27560, Dec. 26, 2016>

E. From August 2013, the Plaintiff opened a business in a place less than approximately 150 to 200 meters away from the leased portion of the instant case, “(trade name 1 omitted)” and “a coffee specialty (trade name 2 omitted)” 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 is at 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. On the following grounds, the lower court determined that the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 31, 201, on the grounds that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the grounds that the term of the instant lease agreement was from January 1, 201 to May 5 (60 months) according to the terms and conditions written in the last four lease agreements (hereinafter “fourth lease agreement”) from the said 1.B.

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 the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the disposal document and the confirmation of the content of the contract without exhaust all necessary

3. On January 5, 2016, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff delivered the leased portion to the Defendant by removing all the facilities from the leased part of the instant case on January 5, 2016, and by returning the keys 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 Kim Jae-sik in charge

Justices Min Min-young

Justices Noh Tae-ok