가등기에 기한 소유권이전등기
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “Around February 21, 2013” in Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is “Around February 21, 2014,” and the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is identical with that of the judgment, as set forth in Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The plaintiff asserted that the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff should be confirmed by voluntary conciliation in accordance with Paragraph 7 of the agreement of this case, and that the agreement of this case lost its validity as a fluid null and void state unless the agreement of this case is settled voluntarily in the lawsuit of this case.
B. The interpretation of an expression of intent is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the party gave to the expression of intent is clearly established, and in a case where the content of a contract is written in writing, which is a disposal document, it shall not be cited in the phrase used in the document, but shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the party gives to the expression of intent in writing, regardless of the party’s internal intent. In such a case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be acknowledged, barring any special circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010). In particular, in a case where a construction contrary to the objective meaning of the language would seriously affect the legal relationship between the parties, the content of the language should be more strictly interpreted.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da46531, Nov. 13, 2008; 2010Da67319, Dec. 9, 2010). In light of the record of evidence No. 14, the Plaintiff and the Defendant added the content of this agreement in Article 7 of the instant agreement.