beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In a case where there is a difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract, and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the parties’ intent should 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
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816 Decided September 20, 2007, etc.). However, if the objective meaning of the language is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence of the expression of intent and its contents should be recognized, unless there are special circumstances.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da72572, May 24, 2002; Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). In cases where the content of a contract asserted by one of the parties imposes a significant liability on the other party or infringes on or restricts an essential part of his/her rights, such as ownership, it shall be more strictly construed.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da3103, Oct. 26, 1993; 2014Da14115, Jun. 26, 2014). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts.
With respect to the construction of multi-family houses (hereinafter “instant housing”) in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant construction”) between C and C on August 28, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract between C and C with the content that the construction cost shall be KRW 560 million (excluding value-added tax) and the construction period shall be from August 28, 2012 to February 2013, and C did not complete the instant construction but by the end of February 2013.
B. (1) On April 18, 2013, the Plaintiff, upon introduction by C, lent KRW 80 million to the Defendant for construction cost of the instant construction project. (2) The Defendant, while the said money, as the construction cost of the instant construction project, is the Plaintiff, and the said money is the construction cost of the instant construction project.