beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized by this court under paragraph (2). Therefore, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that C’s obligation owed by the Defendant under the instant agreement (Evidence A 1) includes the obligation to compensate for damages due to tort, such as embezzlement.
This is because the defendant was actually in a partner position.
Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 230 million after deducting approximately KRW 70 million paid as a result of the prior suit from approximately KRW 300,000,000,000 as a result of the prior suit.
B. Determination 1) Unless there are special circumstances, a disposal document must be objectively interpreted that the parties expressed their intent in accordance with its language and text. In the event there is an objection regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the objective to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da23574, Feb. 27, 2001; 2004Da67264, May 13, 2005; 204Da67264, 67271, May 13, 2005). In light of such legal principles, it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion even if there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
As long as the text of the instant agreement specifies “A’s obligation as a result of the settlement of the G Hospital accounts” as the subject of the Defendant’s liability, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s liability therefrom includes the Defendant’s tort liability for damages.
Therefore, the plaintiff's status on a different premise is the same.