[1] The method of interpreting the expression of intent expressed in the disposal document

[2] The case holding that even if an employee was in the state of filing a lawsuit claiming retirement benefits against the company due to dispute over the amount of retirement benefits, where the company received retirement benefits from the company and submitted a written oath not to raise any objection as to the termination of the employment relationship, it shall be deemed that the company entered into a partial lawsuit agreement on retirement allowances, etc.

[1] When the authenticity of a dispositive document is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent according to the contents of the document must be recognized unless there is any counter-proof. In the interpretation of the declaration of intent, if the party’s genuine intent is not known, the interpretation shall be made with the intention inferred by the act externally expressed, not by the party’s internal deliberation.

[2] The case holding that in case where a worker retires a company and receives a retirement allowance, etc., and signed a written pledge stating that "I swear that I will not raise any objection later in connection with the termination of a labor relationship," it shall be deemed that I have given up all legal relations arising out of the termination of a labor relationship with the company, such as retirement allowances, additional dues, and special compensation, or that I would not bring any civil lawsuit against it in the future, as indicated in the language and text thereof, it shall be reasonable to interpret that the worker has given up all the claims related to the labor cost arising out of the termination of a labor relationship with the company or would not bring any lawsuit against it in the future, and it shall not be deemed that such special agreement cannot be concluded on the ground that the right of lawsuit is public or the retirement allowance system itself has the nature of mandatory laws and regulations, and that the worker has signed and sealed the written pledge after first filing a lawsuit against the claim for retirement allowance, but it shall not be considered that the worker has expressed his intent to continue the lawsuit against the claim for retirement allowance as long as it is not expressed externally.

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Code, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da1320 delivered on April 9, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1399), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5428 delivered on June 24, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2282) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da4799 delivered on April 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 1501), Supreme Court Decision 95Da3350 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2155)

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Office, Law Office, Attorneys Kim Chang-joon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Daily Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Young-gu, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na19842 delivered on January 21, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' non-party' 2's non-party 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted non-indicted 9's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted.

2. However, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence and content of the declaration of intent according to the contents of the document must be recognized unless there is any counter-proof. In the interpretation of the declaration of intent, if the party's genuine intent is not known, it shall be interpreted with an intention inferred by an act externally expressed without the party's internal deliberation (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da1320, Apr. 9, 1996; 97Da5428, Jun. 24, 1997, etc.).

As acknowledged by the court below, if the plaintiffs have signed a written pledge stating that "any objection is not made later in connection with the termination of labor relations with the defendant company" while retiring from the defendant company and receiving retirement allowances, they shall be deemed to have given up all legal relations arising out of the termination of labor relations with the defendant company, such as retirement allowances, additional dues, and special compensation, or have made a non-litigation agreement with the defendant company to refuse to bring a lawsuit in the future, or not to bring a lawsuit in the civil law, as shown in the language and text of the contract, it shall be deemed that the plaintiffs have given up all the claims related to labor relations with the defendant company, such as retirement allowances, additional dues, and special compensation, or have the nature of mandatory law. In addition, among the circumstances cited by the court below, the circumstance that the plaintiffs had expressed their intent to continue the lawsuit of this case after filing the lawsuit of this case first and signing and sealing the lawsuit of this case shall not be considered to have been expressed outside the plaintiffs' intent.

Nevertheless, the court below should interpret the phrase "I swear that I will not thereafter raise any objection concerning the termination of the employment relationship" as limited to that the plaintiffs do not dispute the retirement facts according to the agreement between the labor and management in the future, and it cannot be deemed that the agreement between the non-party to the lawsuit is reached. The defendant's rejection of the defendant's main safety defense cannot be deemed as a violation of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by failing to properly examine the intent of the party which made such special agreement or by interpreting the instrument. The part of the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)