The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The interpretation of a juristic act is objectively established by the parties’ objective determination of the meaning that the parties gave to an act of expression. In the event of a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the contract document is at issue, the following 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 of

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the parties to a contract are aware of their intent of realization of the contract, and the parties’ intent of acceptance of the contract to terminate the validity of the existing contract can be deemed to have been explicitly and explicitly agreed upon. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the parties’ intent of realization of the contract is objectively consistent with the contents of their intent expressed in both parties’ act of expression. Thus, the parties’ intent of realization of the contract may not be deemed to have been explicitly and explicitly rescinded.

(2) On September 2, 2004, the court below held that the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant vehicle on November 6, 2013, since the sales contract for the instant vehicle was effective by recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning, and that the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant vehicle on November 6, 2013. As to the Defendant’s defense against which the instant sales contract was terminated by agreement, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant was unaware of the name from the person who was not the party who was the party who was the date of the instant sales contract, and then the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s responsibility and the return of the purchase price are punished.