beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 81,00,000 as well as 15% per annum from December 20, 2018 to May 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The interpretation of the relevant legal doctrine is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expressing the legal act. Although the phrase used in writing is not subject to the expression used in writing, the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expressing the legal act should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document regardless of the party’s inner intent. In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the party’s text, the content of the text, the motive and circumstance leading up to the act of expressing the legal act, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the act, transaction practices, etc. shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense and transaction norms so that it conforms to the ideology of social justice and equity.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da31493 delivered on November 10, 2000, etc.). B.
Facts of recognition
The following facts may be admitted if there is no dispute between the parties, or if the whole purport of the pleadings is added to each entry of Gap 1 to 10 evidence (including each number):
1) The Defendant, as an actual operator of the business entity’s trade name “C”, engaged in the business of manufacturing and installing State-owned water production machinery. A service contract stating that “The Defendant, from March 2010 to April 2018, after being awarded a contract for the manufacturing and installation of State-owned water manufacturing equipment from D, etc. to April 2018, is between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, who is the operator of the business entity of “E”, and “the Defendant,” re-subcontracts the Plaintiff with the manufacture and repair services of the parts, such as rums and logs, from among the above State-owned water manufacturing equipment, and pays the Plaintiff the service price therefor (hereinafter “instant service contract”).
(2) The Plaintiff concluded the instant service contract from June 2015 to December 2016 under the instant service contract.