[1] The method of interpreting the content of a contract where the objective meaning of the language and text of the disposal document is not clearly revealed

[2] In a case where any procedure is required for the declaration of intention of cancellation or termination during the term of lease or is subject to restrictions, whether such restrictions are applied naturally to the termination of the lease due to the expiration of the term of lease (negative)

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105, 211, 543, and 618 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da3103 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3167) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72572 delivered on May 24, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 1479)

See Attached List of Plaintiffs (Attorney Kim Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

boom boom Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Na14032 Decided December 24, 2013

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where the content of a contract between the parties to the contract is prepared in writing, which is a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression should be recognized unless there are special circumstances. However, in a case where the objective meaning of the text is not clearly expressed, regardless of the parties’ internal intent, the contents of the text and the motive and circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the contract, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties to the contract, transaction practices, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and the contents of the contract shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, general common sense, and transaction norms so as to be consistent with the ideology of social justice and equity. In particular, in a case where the content of the contract alleged by one party imposes a significant liability on the other party or infringes on or restricts important rights, such as ownership, etc., which the party holds shall be more strictly interpreted (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3103, Oct. 26, 1993, etc.).

Article 211 of the Civil Act provides that “the owner shall have the right to use, profit from, and dispose of the property owned by him/her within the scope of the Act.” The owner’s exercise of ownership can be subject to various public law or private law restrictions, and the owner’s exercise of ownership may be restricted by the creation of a right to use, such as a right to lease based on his/her own intent. However, after the expiration of the period of a contract to establish a right to use, such as a lease term, the owner shall be guaranteed the right to freely exercise ownership, beyond the restriction due to the establishment of a right to use, since any procedure is required or limited to the cancellation or termination of a lease due to the expiration of the term of lease, such restriction should not be extended and interpreted as naturally at the time of the termination of a lease due to the expiration of the term of lease. In order to impose any restriction on the termination of a lease due to the expiration of the term of lease, such legal provisions or implied agreements between

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above 2-year lease contract between the defendant 2 and the 1-year lease contract of this case was concluded on June 30, 206 on the 2-year lease contract between the defendant 1 and the 2-year lease contract of this case. The 1-year lease contract of this case was concluded on the 2-year lease contract of this case and the 1-year lease contract of this case, which was concluded on the 2-year lease contract of this case and the 1-year lease contract of this case. The 2-year lease contract of this case was concluded on the 8-year lease contract of this case. The 2-year lease contract of this case was concluded on the 1-year lease contract of this case and the 2-year lease contract of this case, which was concluded on the 1-year lease contract of this case and the 3-year lease contract of this case, and the 1-year lease contract of this case was concluded on the 3-year lease contract of this case.

3. Examining the record in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the above lease agreement shall be rescinded and terminated by a majority of the buyers in the case of rescission and termination. However, in the case of the expiration of the lease term, the parties to the contract clearly stipulate that the contract shall modify the terms and conditions between June and January before the expiration of the lease term and notify the expiration of the contract, and there is no provision or agreement between the buyers of the commercial building in this case that there may be restrictions on the exercise of their ownership. Therefore, it is necessary to make a resolution and notification by the majority of the buyers to limit the cancellation and termination related to the performance of the lease contract in this case, and it is reasonable to view that such restrictions cannot be recognized until the expiration of the lease term due to the expiration of the lease term.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which interpreted that the lease contract of this case was terminated by the notification of the expiration of the plaintiffs' expiration period is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the interpretation of legal act

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, 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 on the bench.

[Attachment] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)