(a) The meaning of interpretation of the juristic act and the method of interpreting the juristic act in case where the objective intention is not clearly expressed by the parties’ language and text

(b) The case holding that there is an error of law in interpreting the parties' intentions regarding the agreement on the payment of construction price;

(c) Measures to be taken by the court when an appraisal opinion is not reliable, where the price for work is to be paid according to the appraisal opinion of an appraiser nominated under the agreement between the parties;

A. Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the party gave to the act of representation. In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the party’s language and text, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, general common sense, and transaction norms, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the party concerned, transaction practices, etc.

(b) The case holding that there is an error of law in interpreting the parties' intentions regarding the agreement on the payment of construction price;

C. In a case where the parties have agreed to pay the price for the work in advance according to the appraisal opinion of the appraiser nominated by the parties’ agreement, where the appraisal opinion is deemed to lack credibility, the court should determine the dispute by using the other reasonable professional opinion as supplementary materials.

Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Da3571 delivered on May 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 1997) (Gong1992, 1997) 93Da3103 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3167) 93Da32668 delivered on March 25, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1320)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant] Kim Chang-sung Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na66246 delivered on November 24, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below's findings of fact and the judgment are summarized as follows based on the reasoning of the judgment below.

A. First of all, the court below decided on July 9, 190 that the defendant company ordered the plaintiff 2 to complete the above civil work site within the amount equivalent to 80 percent of the construction cost that the defendant company received from the non-party Korea Electric Power Corporation (hereinafter "the non-party corporation") to contract the total construction cost of 1.8 billion won (the amount of 516,351,000 won for civil works, the amount of 1,283,649,000 won for construction portion) for the non-party 1 as the director of the construction site and started preparation of the work around January 1991. The above non-party 1 directly managed the construction site and ordered the non-party 2 to complete the above civil work site by ordering the non-party 2 to direct and supervise the construction site within the amount equivalent to 80 percent of the construction cost that the defendant received from the non-party corporation to the non-party 3 corporation and ordered the non-party 2 to pay the non-party 1 to the plaintiff 2 and the non-party 2 to the above construction site.

B. Next, it is difficult for the plaintiffs to accept the above claim for construction cost of 0% of the total construction cost of the above 1st 7th 1st 6th 1st 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1912 6th 6th 6th 1992222th 6th 6th 6th 7.

2. The so-called interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expression. If the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the parties’ language and text, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of society and equity, and transaction norms, by comprehensively examining the contents of the language and text, and the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties, transaction practices, etc., in order to conform to the social justice and equity ideology (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da3571, May 26, 1992). Thus, the above two parts of the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant at issue in this case are not agreed to assess the construction cost actually invested in the part of the original construction work and pay the appraisal price as the construction cost, but merely, it shall be interpreted that the parties have agreed to determine the construction cost by applying the appraisal ratio at the time of discontinuance of construction work in accordance with the general practices for calculating the construction cost at the time of cancellation of construction work.

First of all, according to the above facts and their employment evidence acknowledged by the court below, the above non-party 1, who is the director of the construction site of this case, retired from his position due to the Gap's own circumstances while the contract construction of this case was being conducted, and the plaintiff 2 shall be responsible for and responsible for the construction of the above construction site and the construction of the above construction site with consent from the defendant. In addition, for the smooth continuation of the above contract construction, the defendant company agreed to pay the construction cost directly to the plaintiffs in response to their request when the plaintiffs submit a detailed statement of the use of funds for the construction cost actually invested after the commencement of the above construction work. Accordingly, on July 8, 191, the plaintiffs prepared a detailed statement of the use of funds that the construction cost of the work site of this case was required as a total of 314,403,72 won to the defendant company until the end of the above year and refused to pay it differently from the facts, and the plaintiffs raised a dispute between the defendant's administrative authority and the defendant's administrative authority over the above construction site.

In fact, the motive for each of the above agreements is that as the plaintiffs' settlement and payment of the construction cost actually invested in the relevant part of the construction cost has emerged from the time when the construction work in this case was discontinued to the time, it is clear that the conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendant arises from the need to appropriately adjust the interests of both parties due to the formation of a conflict between the plaintiffs and the defendant about the amount of the construction cost actually invested in the relevant part of the construction cost.

In addition, the agreement (Evidence No. 2-3) prepared at the time of the first agreement as mentioned above states that "the construction cost completed shall be examined and appraised by public agencies and settled according to the results, because it is difficult to verify the construction cost," and the minutes (Evidence No. 2-4) of the non-party construction work prepared at the time of the second agreement should be recognized if the two parties can calculate the fair results in calculating the construction cost.

Both parties select an enterprise that can calculate the construction cost by September 5, 191 and complete the calculation of the construction cost by the end of the following month, and do not raise any objection to the result thereof. The Defendant shall settle the construction cost related to the construction on the side of the Plaintiffs within 14 days after the completion of the construction cost. The construction cost related to the construction work shall be entirely based on the amount submitted by the calculating enterprise of the construction cost, and no longer demand for construction cost related to the construction work in this case, and the petition related to the construction work in this case shall not be absolute. The service cost according to the calculation of the construction cost shall be borne equally by both parties, and it shall be carried out in advance by the Defendant enterprise. According to the above text, the primary purpose at the time of each of the above agreements between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was solely to determine the appropriate amount by any method, and it appears that the Plaintiffs were the object of interest to which the total amount of the construction cost actually paid until the completion of the construction work reaches a certain level among the entire process.

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to interpret that the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant company is reached to the effect that the fair appraiser will appraise the construction cost actually spent on the part of the original construction work until the plaintiffs suspended the construction work and pay the amount equivalent to the construction cost as the completed portion of the construction cost. If the agreement was reached with the purport of the judgment of the court below without such agreement, as it is the premise for the settlement of payment of the cost of the original construction work and the method of determining the rate of the completed portion of the construction cost as the premise for the settlement of payment of the cost of the entire construction work, unless the agreement is reached among the parties, the contents of the agreement cannot be deemed to be an ambiguous one that cannot be any particular invalidation in resolving the settlement problem of the cost of the entire construction work. Thus, even in all evidentiary relations shown in the records, it cannot be viewed that the agreement was valid for the parties to the contract of this case and the defendant company, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was no reason to interpret the agreement.

However, as recognized by the court below, the plaintiffs' appraisal of construction cost actually invested in the completed portion of the construction work of this case was made by the Hanyang Construction Technology Corporation and the non-party 2 with the consent of the defendant company in accordance with the above agreement, and the appraisal of construction cost of the construction work of this case is equivalent to KRW 475,20,00, and the construction cost of the construction cost of this case is equivalent to KRW 249,222,091. However, the above appraisal is made based on only the drawings and field photographs, human parts and material inputs, etc. which the plaintiffs unilaterally presented, and in particular, the above appraisal method is not fair in light of the fact that the above appraisal method is not reasonable without properly verifying the construction site.

As can be seen, in a case where the appraisal opinion is deemed to lack credibility in a case where the appraisal opinion is to be paid for the work cost according to the appraisal opinion of the appraiser designated under the agreement by the parties concerned, the court of the lawsuit shall have to determine the dispute by applying the other reasonable professional opinion as supplementary data (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da5556, Apr. 26, 191). Accordingly, the court below shall point out that the parties concerned should have calculated reasonable and reliable construction cost by devising measures such as requiring the plaintiffs to prove the amount equivalent to the construction cost actually invested in the work cost of the instant work cost by other appraisal methods, thereby seeking the appropriate resolution of the dispute of this case.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)