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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. A settlement in the court shall have the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Act), and if a settlement contract in the private law between the parties forms the content thereof, if a settlement takes its original effect (Article 732 of the Civil Act), the settlement shall extinguish the rights and duties relationship based on the previous legal relationship;

However, the scope of the creative effect of a compromise shall be limited to the matters agreed to be agreed by the parties to determine the concession between them, and it shall not take effect with respect to the matters which have not been proved by the parties, or which have not been understood on the premise of the compromise.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da17319 delivered on April 27, 2001). Such legal relationship also applies to a conciliation under the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, which is recognized as having the same effect as a judicial conciliation under Article 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act.

Meanwhile, the interpretation of a juristic act is clearly binding upon the objective meaning given by the parties to the act of representation. In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the language and text expressed by the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, common sense of society and transaction norms so that it conforms to the ideology of justice and equity, 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 of the parties to the juristic act, transaction practices, etc. In such a case where there is a dispute as to the interpretation of the adjustment clause after the parties to the lawsuit entered into conciliation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da31550, Sept. 10, 2009).