손해배상(기)
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intention 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; and
In a case where there is a dispute over the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the intent expressed in the disposition document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively examining the contents of the text, the motive and background of the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002; 2017Da235647, Jul. 12, 2018). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment reveals the following.
On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff, as a registered housing construction business entity, purchased the instant land, which is a multi-family housing site in the said project district, from the Defendant in the said project district, for KRW 137,578,230,000, and entered into the instant contract with the Defendant to pay the remainder of the sales price, other than the contract deposit, in six installments until December 21, 2015.
B. Of the indication of the subject matter of the instant contract, the period of land use in the remarks column is specified as December 31, 2014, after the date of payment of the fourth installment from the date of payment of the fourth installment. The main text of Article 5(2) of the instant contract states, “Where the period of land use is delayed due to the delay in construction work due to a cause attributable to the Defendant’s responsibility, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of delay compensation as referred to in Article 2 to the amount of the purchase price already paid, or shall substitute for the payment to the Plaintiff, which
(c).