1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant’s Seoul Western District Court dated June 11, 2019 against the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the parties’ assertion is that the Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of the right to lease by July 12, 2019 pursuant to the instant conciliation clause(2), and such obligation is in a preferential performance or simultaneous performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the money to the Defendant under Article 3(3) of the instant conciliation clause, and the Defendant cancelled the right to lease only after the Plaintiff made a deposit for payment. As such, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to bear the obligation to pay the interest in arrears, the enforcement under the proviso of Article 3(3) of the instant conciliation clause should be rejected.

In regard to this, the Defendant did not set forth the Defendant’s duty to cancel the lease registration under Article 2(2) of the instant conciliation clause, and claimed that the Defendant’s duty prescribed under Article 3(2) of the instant conciliation clause cannot be deemed as either a prior performance or a simultaneous performance relationship.

B. The interpretation of a juristic act 1 ought to be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of society and transaction norms, comprehensively taking into account the contents of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the said juristic act, transaction practices, etc. in a case where there is an issue of interpretation of the parties’ intent due to the conflict of opinions on the interpretation of the juristic act between the parties.

This legal doctrine is likewise the same in case where there is a dispute as to the interpretation of the conciliation clause after the parties to the lawsuit form conciliation.