The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

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

1. Interpretation of a juristic act is clearly confirming the objective meaning which the party gave to the act of indicating it, and it does not include only the used language and text, but only the objective meaning which the party gives to the act of indicating it according to the contents of the language and text shall be reasonably interpreted. In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly expressed by the party’s language and text, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and social common sense and transaction norms so as to conform to the ideology of social justice and equity, comprehensively taking into account the form and contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent of the party to the juristic act, transaction practices, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da90095, 90101, May 14, 2009). Such a legal doctrine applies to the interpretation of an agreement where a project implementer who promotes a housing construction project concludes an agreement to divide and settle infrastructure installation costs, as in the instant case.

2. Examining the facts established by the lower court in light of the record, the following facts are revealed. A.

Since March 1999, the project application was made by 29 companies in the new zone, such as filing an application for approval of the housing construction plan for the new apartment purchase from March 199 to the new zone, for the purpose of developing the new construction of apartment units as a village district where the construction of apartment units is possible.

(b) The Gansung City is a new salary-class district and