Interpretation of the meaning and contents of each letter submitted by an individual who has obtained authorization, permission, etc. in response to administrative dispositions, such as authorization, permission, etc.

Article 105 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Lee Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Alnwon City Development Co., Ltd and one other (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys So-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Namyang-si (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Ho-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Nu32541 decided May 26, 201

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found that the defendant's new construction cost of KRW 20 billion is 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,000,00,00,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00,00.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of disposition documents as otherwise alleged in the ground

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In interpreting the meaning and contents of each letter submitted by an individual who is subject to authorization, permission, etc. in response to an administrative disposition such as false authorization, permission, etc., it shall be reasonably interpreted that it conforms to the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively considering the characteristics of public law relations in a superior position, the contents of each letter, the motive and background leading up to the submission of each letter, the purpose to be achieved by it, the genuine intent of the parties concerned, etc. In addition, if the genuine intent of the parties cannot be known, the elements of the expression of intent are the effects inferred from the act of expression, namely, the expression of intent, and the in-depth intention with the expression of intent, and thus, it is reasonable to interpret it with the intention inferred by the act of externally expressed rather than the party's internal intent (see Supreme Court Decision 97Nu3422 delivered on January 29, 199).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on October 29, 2009, the court below acknowledged that the defendant sent a public notice to the defendant on October 29, 2009 that the second cost of building the road will be replaced by performance angle and performance bond, and that the above public notice would have paid KRW 3.31 billion out of the above public notice, and that the defendant would be exempted from the payment of the receipts that the defendant would have paid KRW 2.0 billion in consultation about the issue of this case by January 31, 2010, and that the defendant would have promised to pay the above public notice by cash to the defendant for the execution of the construction project of this case until the fundamental issues, such as government subsidies, etc., are resolved (hereinafter "the execution note of this case"), and that the defendant would have been exempt from the plaintiffs' payment of the new construction cost of the road construction project of this case by the time limit of 200 billion in consideration of the situation that the defendant would have paid the new construction cost of the road construction project of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standard of interpretation of the letter of commitment submitted by the parties in response to administrative dispositions such as authorization and permission, etc.

3. Conclusion

All appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)