beta
Text
1. Disposition 1-B of the first instance judgment, including the plaintiffs' claims expanded in the trial.
(c) , d;
(e) paragraph.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance (Paragraph 1), and thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
On the sixth page of the judgment of the court of first instance, “.......” was paid” as “after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, and additionally paid KRW 12,064,446, which was April 6, 2020 after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered..”
"A evidence No. 5" shall be added to the 7th judgment of the first instance (based on recognition).
2. The court's explanation on this part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 3-2(a). Thus, the court's explanation on this part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the
Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff from 14th to 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.
“The money that the Plaintiff is obliged to pay to the Defendant does not remain. Therefore, as the Plaintiffs’ obligations based on the instant notarial deed do not exist, compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed should be denied, and there is no obligation of the Plaintiffs to the Defendant based on the instant contract, thus seeking confirmation thereon.”
3. Determination
A. The legal nature of the instant contract is 1) In cases where the contractual parties written in writing, which is a disposal document, an objective meaning given by the parties to the contract according to the contents written in the document, regardless of the party’s internal intent, shall be reasonably construed regardless of whether it is a disposal document. In such cases, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010).