[1] The probative value of a disposal document recognized as authentic

[2] The case holding that the appellate court erred by misapprehending the legal principles in holding that Gap shall be entitled to the above contract deposit on the ground that Eul, while entering into a delegation contract with Eul, entrusted the right to operate the excursion ship and ferry with Eul, Eul established Eul corporation for the purpose of running the excursion ship business along with Byung, etc. after paying four navigation deposit, one-year navigation fee and one-year navigation fee, and Eul merged Eul corporation, which was the representative director of Eul, and Eul operated two excursion ships, and Eul filed a lawsuit for the reason that the collection of subscription fees, etc. against Eul was illegal, while the appellate court sustained the lawsuit for the reason that Eul was unlawful, Eul's and Byung continued to pay the amount of navigation deposit to Byung when Eul corporation requested the navigation deposit for the excursion ship and two excursion ships owned by the non-company, and thus, Eul agreed to pay the amount of navigation deposit to Byung when Eul corporation becomes lawful according to the above judgment of the appellate court within the scope permitted by the law, and Eul paid the amount of navigation deposit to Byung, which clearly stated that Byung was entitled to the above contract deposit to be paid to Byung.

[1] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act, Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2017Da235647 Decided July 12, 2018 (Gong2018Ha, 1586)

Plaintiff (Law Firm International, Attorneys Hong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Changwon District Court Decision 2017Na58721 decided September 20, 2018

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) On May 19, 201, the Defendant entered into a delegation agreement with the Funeraldo Maritime Park Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Funeraldo Maritime Park”) under which the service provider is entrusted with the right of navigation of sight lines and pilotages, which plies between the area of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the Han-si, the Defendant paid KRW 200 million for the purpose of four navigation deposits for the vessel of the sea of the Do. On the same day, funeral also paid KRW 40 million as the vessel’s four navigation deposits

(2) On June 13, 2011, the Defendant, along with the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, established the Funeraldo Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Funeral Services Shipping”) for the purpose of the above excursion ship business, etc., and thereafter, the Defendant was the representative director of the Funeral Services Shipping by May 27, 2013.

(3) On August 27, 2012, a funeral service company incorporated the shares of village residents by separating the shares of village residents from the funeral service Do maritime transport on August 27, 2012. On December 22, 2015, two coastal lines (○○○○ and △△△△△△△△△) are operated by combining funeral service Do maritime transport. The Plaintiff was the representative director of the household excursion ship from December 18, 2015 to February 20, 2017.

(4) On April 4, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Dogdo Park (Seoul District Court Tongwon Branch 2014Gahap1009), and the Defendant filed a claim for the return of KRW 200 million, including the flight deposit, KRW 400 million and the entrance fee, by asserting that “the collection of the entrance fee, etc. by the Dogdo Park is unlawful and the delegation contract was null and void or revoked” in the appellate court [Seoul High Court 2015Na451].

(5) On May 8, 2015, when the above appellate trial was in progress, the Defendant, Funeral Servicesdo Shipping, and Sight Ship agreed to the effect that “a civil or criminal dispute between the parties concerned, including other lawsuits (including the Busan High Court 2015Na20516) between the Dogdo Shipping and the Defendant, shall not raise any civil or criminal issues in the future, and a penalty of one billion won shall be paid if both parties violate their obligations” (hereinafter “prior agreement”).

(6) The Plaintiff and the Defendant made payment to the Plaintiff on the same day of the navigation security deposit for the excursion ships owned by the funeraldo Shipping and the boats (○○○○○, and △△△△△△△△). In relation to the navigation security deposit, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made a payment to the Plaintiff in the passbook for the construction of Onnuri land (the State) at the ○○○○○ and the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ Construction (the Busan High Court Decision 2015Na451) when the Defendant requested navigation security deposit for the excursion ships operated from the Do Funeral Park to the funeral at the designated range permitted by the Act (the Busan High Court Decision 2015Na451). The agreement becomes effective after the judgment of the said 2015Na451. The agreement was made between the Defendant and the Do funeral Shipping and the 2,43 non-party representative directors, and the Plaintiff and the non-party 6, regardless of May 8, 2015.

(7) On October 8, 2015, the said appellate court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “the collection of admission fees, etc. was unlawful, and the said delegation contract was invalidated or revoked,” and rendered a judgment ordering the return of the remaining KRW 200 million after deducting KRW 200 million from the Defendant’s deposit for navigation deposit, deeming that the said delegation contract was terminated upon the Defendant’s declaration of termination of the said commission contract, based on the Funeraldo Maritime Park’s declaration of termination.

(8) On January 22, 2016, funeraldo maritime park notified the content of the agreement that “10 million won per ship security deposit and 20 million won per ship shall be determined as KRW 100 million per ship and 20 million per special use development fund.”

2. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Funeraldo Sea Park demanded a vessel operation security deposit to the abrupt boat; and (b) the said appellate court rendered a judgment that the collection of the entrance fee, etc. was lawful; and (c) all the terms and conditions of the instant agreement were fulfilled; and (d) filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 200,00

3. The lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim under the instant agreement was premised on the assumption that the claim would be reverted to the Plaintiff, and, considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Plaintiff is in the position to collect and deliver claims under the instant agreement for the distribution of oil, and cannot be interpreted as the obligee of the said claim.

(1) Since funeraldo Maritime Park and the party who is obligated to pay vessel operation security deposit and the party who is obligated to pay vessel operation security deposit is the owner of the scenic line ○○○○○ and △△△△△, the instant agreement is bound to be concluded by the Plaintiff to receive vessel operation security deposit from the Defendant and deliver it to the Do Maritime Park, in the event that the Funeraldo Maritime Park demands a vessel operation security deposit on the virtual scenic line.

(2) Examining the motive and circumstances in which the instant agreement was concluded, it is deemed that, inasmuch as it was not possible to enter into an agreement against the Defendant, prior agreement with the Defendant and thus, it appears that the agreement was made in the name of the Plaintiff, a shareholder of the said company and the intra-company director, and the Plaintiff’s individual director.

(3) The Defendant appears to have entered into the instant agreement on the premise that the aforementioned appellate court’s collection of vessel operation deposit is unlawful, depending on the invalidity or cancellation of the delegation contract, and that, if deemed unlawful, the vessel operation deposit will be returned upon the termination of the contract at the Maritime Park. The purpose of the instant agreement is to achieve the instant agreement is to pay KRW 200 million, which is 20 million, from among the returned deposit, if the Defendant was to recover KRW 400,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000

(4) The Plaintiff recognized that the claim under the instant agreement ought to be attributed to the distribution line, and that it does not belong to the Plaintiff.

4. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

(1) As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence to deny the contents of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da235647, Jul. 12, 2018).

(2) The instant agreement states that the Defendant shall pay the amount equivalent to the amount of the vessel operation deposit to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Do Funeral Park demanded a vessel operation deposit and that the collection of the vessel operation deposit is lawful in the above appellate trial. As such, the Defendant’s payment of the amount of the vessel operation deposit is clearly stated as the Plaintiff, as the subject who is to receive the amount of the vessel operation deposit from the Defendant is clearly stated as the Plaintiff, even if there is no clear and acceptable counter-proof, the Defendant shall pay the amount equivalent to the vessel

(3) In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the circumstances indicated by the lower court as the grounds for its determination constituted a clear and acceptable counter-proof circumstance to deny the content of the instant agreement.

If a funeral park, like the judgment of the court below, demands a vessel operation deposit to a running boat, the plaintiff received an amount equivalent to the vessel operation deposit from the defendant for a running boat and delivered it to the funeral Do Sea Park. If a running boat becomes the subject of the instant agreement instead of claiming the amount equivalent to the vessel operation deposit due to prior agreement, the plaintiff becomes the subject of the instant agreement instead of claiming the amount equivalent to the vessel operation deposit from the defendant. Nevertheless, on the premise that the economic interest is not substantially attributed to the plaintiff, the instant agreement shall be deemed to have been concluded with the purport of paying the amount equivalent to the vessel operation deposit to the plaintiff. In other words, the economic interest of the instant agreement belongs to the running boat and the Plaintiff plays the role of delivering the amount equivalent to the vessel operation deposit to the plaintiff. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received the amount equivalent to the vessel operation deposit from the defendant as a result of the instant agreement to serve as a creditor under the instant agreement. Considering all the circumstances indicated by the court below, it is difficult to find any grounds for interpretation different from the text of the instant agreement.

(4) Therefore, the lower court should have determined whether to accept the Plaintiff’s claim after further review on the premise that the subject of payment of the amount equivalent to the amount of the vessel operation deposit from the Defendant, regardless of who is the economic interest of the instant agreement, is the Plaintiff, on the premise that the conditions are fulfilled, namely, whether the Funeraldo Sea Park demanded a vessel operation deposit, and whether the collection of the vessel operation deposit was lawful. Nevertheless, solely based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of the disposition document to reject the Plaintiff’s claim by interpreting the instant agreement differently from

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 Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)