[1] The method of interpreting the intent of the parties indicated in the disposal document and whether the creditor renounced his right through the creditor's abstract act should be considered in interpreting the disposal document

[2] In a case where the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation and the Advertising Agency concluded the "Stop Advertising Agency Contract" for the subway platform, the case affirming the judgment of the court below holding that the above Corporation is liable for damages on the ground that it is impossible to perform its duty under the Advertising Agency Contract as a result of the policy decision to install screeners in all subway stations operated by the above Corporation

[3] In a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to nonperformance, where it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damages despite the existence of property damage, whether the court may determine the amount of damages by taking full account of the indirect facts revealed by the investigation of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings (affirmative), and the method of calculating

[1] In a case where there is a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the objective to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. In addition, the waiver (or exemption from obligation) of a claim does not necessarily necessarily require an explicit declaration of intent, but it shall be recognized in a case where it can be deemed a waiver of a claim by means of an act of an obligee or interpretation of an expression of intent. However, for such recognition, the determination of whether to apply the act of an obligee or the expression of intent thereof must be made strictly

[2] In a case where the Seoul Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation and an advertising agency entered into the "Air Railway Advertising Agency Contract" for the subway platform platform ", the above advertising agency shall immediately move, install, or remove the same quantity to other stations where the above construction works are installed in the stations where safety fences are installed under this contract," the case affirming the judgment of the court below that the above advertising agency's liability for damages is not possible in accordance with the above advertising agency contract, on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the above advertising agency's intent is to give the same quantity to the above advertising agency when the screen is installed in not less than 10 stations as scheduled, or to allow it to move, install, or remove the same quantity without moving or installing it in another station."

[3] In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to nonperformance of obligation, where it is deemed that the existence of property damage is recognized, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage by taking into account all the indirect facts related to the relationship between the parties, the circumstances leading up to nonperformance of obligation and property damage therefrom, the nature of damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of damage, which are revealed by the examination of evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings. Such legal doctrine is proven under the principle of free evaluation of evidence, but where it is difficult to prove the amount of damage due to the nature of the case, the purport of the legal doctrine is to reduce the degree of proof and conviction, thereby granting a judge a discretion to assess the amount of damage, and thus, the court is not obliged to make every effort to investigate the indirect facts that serve as the basis for calculating the amount of damage, and thus, should reasonably assess the amount of damage objectively acceptable by reasonably evaluating the indirect facts that were investigated.

[1] Articles 105 and 506 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 105, 390, and 506 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 393 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Da4517, 4524 decided Apr. 11, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 1185) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27150 decided Apr. 15, 2005 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6951, 6968 decided Jun. 24, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1201) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3561 decided Nov. 29, 2007 (Gong2008Sang, 2012)

State Worldcom Co., Ltd. (Law Firm World Law, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Metropolitan Government Metropolitan Government Urban Railroad Corporation (Attorney Goo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na64651 decided April 29, 2010

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract and the interpretation of the intention of the party expressed in the disposition document is at issue, such interpretation shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to such an agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da4517, April 11, 2000, etc.).

In addition, the waiver (or exemption of obligation) of a claim does not necessarily necessarily require an explicit declaration of intent, and even in cases where it can be seen as a waiver of a claim by means of a certain act or an interpretation of an obligee’s expression of intent, it should be recognized. However, for such recognition, the application of a claim must be determined by strict interpretation of an obligee’s act or declaration of intent in accordance with the contents of the pertinent legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27150, Apr. 15, 2005, etc.)

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence, the court below held that the contract of this case was not purporting to grant the defendant the right to terminate the contract after the notice of performance to the defendant with no compensation, and that the contract of this case does not terminate when scraping is installed in more than 10 stations as scheduled, but rather, the purport of the contract of this case is to give the plaintiff an opportunity to choose whether to remove the same quantity by moving or installing the safety fences in other stations or not. In other words, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff can be installed in accordance with the nature of the contract of this case, and to give the plaintiff an opportunity to choose whether to remove the same quantity because it is possible to demand relocation or installation of advertising business or to remove the advertisement because it is not possible to do so. Thus, in accordance with each of the advertising agency contracts of this case, in principle, the defendant maintains safety fences installed by the plaintiff for each of the above contract period, and if it is necessary to remove part of the screen installed in order to install it, the court below held that the defendant is liable to guarantee the plaintiff's entire obligation to install the advertising agency contract of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to termination of contract, restoration of duty, waiver of claim for damages, interpretation of disposal documents, and determination of value of evidence as otherwise alleged in the

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A. According to the records, the plaintiff changed the claim from the court below on September 14, 2009 that the plaintiff sought damages equivalent to the residual value of the safety pents due to removal of the safety pents within the term of five years from the date of the first pleading of September 14, 2009, which was stated at the court below. However, the court below stated that the defendant, who is obligated to maintain the safety pents within the term of the second pleading of the court below, is liable for damages due to default or tort by removing it entirely in the middle of the contract period, and the conjunctive claim is sought for damages due to the conclusion of the contract, and it is reasonable to change the claim to claim to seek damages equivalent to the residual value of the safety pents to the remaining value including the advertising value of the pents. In fact, it also claims not only the property value of the pents itself but also the damages equivalent to the actual advertising revenue.

Therefore, the decision of the court below to consider the plaintiff's claim of this case as a claim for damages equivalent to the lost advertising revenue is just, and there is no violation of the principle of pleading as alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to nonperformance of obligation, where it is deemed that the existence of property damage is recognized, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage by comprehensively taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties as revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the background leading up to the occurrence of property damage and the occurrence of property damage therefrom, characteristics of damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6951, 6968, Jun. 24, 2004). Such legal principle is proven under the principle of free evaluation of evidence, but if it is difficult to prove the amount of damage due to the nature of the case, it is intended to realize the ideal and function of the damage system with the guiding principle for fair and reasonable allocation of the amount of damage, and thus, it does not give a judge a free discretion to assess the amount of damage.

In light of the above legal principles and records, it is just that the court below calculated the plaintiff's actual advertising loss through fact-finding as stated in its judgment, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles or violation of the rules of evidence.

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below recognized the plaintiff's claim amounting to 2,598,270,000 won, and recognized 679,620,80,803 won of the plaintiff's total damages amounting to 1,260,065,923, and accepted 75,039,553 won of the defendant's liability ratio equivalent to 60% of the defendant's damages amount as the defendant's damages liability amount, and there is no error of law such as violation of disposition right, etc. as claimed in the ground of appeal.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)