[1] The validity of a final and conclusive “decision substituting conciliation”

[2] The scope of the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment recognized as a substitute for conciliation in a final and conclusive judgment, and the requirements for a decision in lieu of conciliation becomes final and conclusive in the course of litigation, the legal relationship other than the subject matter of a lawsuit

[3] In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the party’s language and text, the method of interpreting a juristic act, and whether such a legal principle is likewise applicable to a case where there is a dispute as to the interpretation of a decision after a decision in lieu of conciliation between the parties to a lawsuit became final

[1] If an objection is not filed within the time limit for filing an objection as to a decision substituting conciliation, the decision has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (see Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act) as a settlement in court (see Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act). Therefore, the relationship of rights and duties based on the legal relationship

[2] The same effect as a final and conclusive judgment recognized as a substitute for a final and conclusive conciliation is limited to a judgment on the existence of a legal relationship which is a subject matter of a lawsuit. Therefore, in a case where a decision in lieu of conciliation has become final and conclusive during a litigation proceeding, barring any special circumstance, the legal relationship should be recognized as having become a subject matter of a lawsuit by the content of the decision, by being stated in the decision by being specified as specific in the decision or by adding to the subsequent indication of claims among the decisions, in the event that there is no agreement between the parties. In particular, in a case where there is no agreement between the parties, the decision in lieu of conciliation is made for the fair resolution of the case to the extent that it does not go against the purport of the application or the purport of the claim (see Article 30 of the

[3] In a case where the objective meaning of a juristic act is not clearly revealed through the language and text expressed by the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, common sense of society, and transaction norms, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties by the juristic act, transaction practices, etc. In a case where there is a dispute as to the interpretation of the decision after a decision substituting for conciliation between the parties to a lawsuit becomes final and conclusive.

[1] Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act, Articles 216 and 220 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 105 of the Civil Act, Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32814, 32821 Decided June 29, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1404) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da78732 Decided April 26, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 770), Supreme Court Decision 2014Da7825 Decided February 26, 2015 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 96Da16049 Decided October 25, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3422), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da31550 Decided September 10, 209

Integnb Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Kim Young-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Cheong, Attorneys Oh Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Na46658 Decided December 22, 2016

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court.

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

1. A decision in lieu of conciliation has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, as in a judicial compromise (see Articles 30 and 34 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act). Since the said decision has a creative effect, the relationship of rights and duties based on a previous dispute between the parties is extinguished and a new relationship of rights and duties according to the decision is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da32814, 32821, Jun. 29, 2006, etc.).

Meanwhile, the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment recognized as a substitute for a final and conclusive conciliation is limited to a judgment on the existence of a legal relationship which is a subject matter of a lawsuit. Therefore, in a case where a decision in lieu of a final and conclusive conciliation becomes final and conclusive during a litigation proceeding, barring any special circumstance, the legal relationship is specified in a decision or additional entry after the indication of a claim in the decision, and thus, it should be recognized that the legal relationship has become a subject matter of a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da78732, Apr. 26, 2007; 2014Da7825, Feb. 26, 2015). In particular, where an agreement has not been reached between the parties, the conciliation judge or the court of a lawsuit ex officio makes a decision for the fair resolution of the case within the extent not contrary to the purport or purport of the request, and thus, whether the legal relationship has an effect other than the subject matter of a lawsuit should be more strict (see Article 30).

In addition, where the objective meaning of a juristic act is not clearly revealed through the language and text expressed by the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of society and the common sense of transaction, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and circumstances leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the said juristic act, transaction practices, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da16049, Oct. 25, 1996). Such a legal doctrine likewise applies to cases where a dispute arises as to the interpretation of the decision after a decision in lieu of conciliation has become final and conclusive among the parties to a lawsuit in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da31550, Sept. 10, 2009

2. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. An association that performs the project of constructing a new commercial building (hereinafter “○○○○○” (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) at the size of 4,144.3 square meters in Jung-gu, Seoul and Jung-gu, Seoul, which is the land for the Dongdaemun-gu market for the interest of Seodaemun-gu and the Dongdaemun-gu market. On September 12, 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a general execution agency agreement with the non-party association for the acquisition of the right to lease of the said commercial building and the sale thereof.

B. On May 21, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease sale contract (hereinafter “instant lease sale contract”) with the Defendant setting the total sale price of KRW 125,950,00 with respect to one unit (3.9 square meters in exclusive use area, and 13.22 square meters in total) of the two commercial buildings in this case.

C. On February 23, 2010, the Defendant participated in the second floor △△△△ (hereinafter “instant store”) among the instant commercial buildings by drawing a store in accordance with the instant lease contract. The exclusive use area of the instant store is 3.89 square meters, and the public use area is 7.87 square meters and the total sale area is 11.76 square meters.

D. On March 19, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) notified that the sales price, excluding the rental deposit, is settled in accordance with the exclusive use area (based on 3.9 square meters); (b) the rental deposit is settled in accordance with the sale area (based on 13.22 square meters); (c) provided detailed details of the settlement; and (d) notified that the remainder of the rental sale price to be settled should be paid by April 30, 2010, which is the balance settlement date. The Defendant paid KRW 81,082,50 to the Plaintiff and did not pay the remainder to the Plaintiff.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, non-party partnership, Daewoo Construction, and Dodra, seeking the refund of the sales price following the cancellation of the sales contract, which was made on the ground of deception of false or exaggerated advertisement, with the other buyers of the instant shopping district, along with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gahap40822, on January 2, 2014. On January 2, 2014, the said court rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation between the Plaintiff and the non-party partnership (hereinafter “instant compulsory conciliation decision”). Paragraph (1) of the decision on compulsory conciliation of the instant shopping district, “The decision to replace this conciliation becomes final and conclusive, all civil and criminal lawsuits filed between the Plaintiff, non-party partnership, and the Plaintiff and the non-party partnership shall not be subject to compulsory conciliation, including additional litigation, compulsory execution, and criminal complaints regarding the instant sales contract.” The instant decision did not include compulsory conciliation among the Plaintiff association and the non-party partnership.

3. Examining the above facts and the following circumstances revealed therefrom in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant compulsory adjustment decision merely appears to mean that the Plaintiff and the buyer may not bring a lawsuit seeking the validity of the lease sale contract by causing a dispute again in the future, on the premise that the lease contract remains effective. It does not mean that the purport of the instant compulsory adjustment decision is to prohibit the claim for the performance of obligations in accordance with the terms of the lease sale contract, such as the payment of the sale price, etc

A. The grounds for the claim in the preceding case asserted that the lessee, including the Defendant, entered into the instant shopping district lease contract by false or exaggerated advertisement, and sought a return of the purchase price due to the cancellation of the contract made on the grounds of deception or a claim for damages due to tort. The determination of the settlement of the purchase price due to the increase or decrease in the size of the store and payment of the purchase price or the balance of the sale price, including it, was not subject to dispute or subject to dispute.

B. There is no specific relationship between the relationship of rights concerning the settlement of the rent and the payment of the remainder of the rent and the sales price in the decision of compulsory adjustment of the instant case, and the above relationship of rights is not additionally stated following the indication of the claim for the decision

C. The decision of compulsory adjustment of the instant case provides detailed details of the distribution ratio and rent of commercial revenues (Paragraph 2), extension of the term of lease (Paragraph 3), methods of settlement and allocation of management expenses (Paragraph 4), organization of the management committee of commercial buildings, etc. (Paragraph 5) and waiver of the remainder of the claim by the Defendant, etc. (Paragraph 7), etc. on the remaining grounds that the lease contract remains effective. If the Plaintiff intended to waive the remainder of the lease price, it would have included the content thereof.

D. In the preceding case, since the validity of the lease contract was only disputed, deeming that the lawsuit claiming the performance of the original obligation under the lease sale contract is included in the “additional lawsuit related to the lease sale contract” in the latter part of paragraph (1) as the validity of the lease sale contract is an excessively expanded interpretation of the parties’ intent. Furthermore, at the time of the decision of compulsory adjustment of the instant case, the amount of the sale price not paid by the buyers including the Defendant is less than the amount of the sale price, and the amount of the sale price not paid by the buyers including the Defendant, is extremely diverse from the million won to the million unit. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff intended to waive it in a lump sum, and if such purport is that it accords with the intent of the parties who tried to resolve the instant case smoothly, such as the possibility of unfair treatment between the buyers and the possibility of causing another dispute cannot be ruled out.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court revoked the first instance judgment that accepted part of the Plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the instant lawsuit, on the ground that the instant lawsuit was brought in violation of the Non-committee agreement and was unlawful as it did not have any interest in the protection of rights, as it is deemed that the instant lawsuit was unlawful, since it was a non-committee agreement and its validity is an action of this case seeking a balance of the sales price, including the settlement amount following an increase

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the decision in lieu of conciliation and the agreement to file a lawsuit in lieu of conciliation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is 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 on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)