beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the parties’ assertion are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Determination
A. In general, who is the party to the relevant legal doctrine constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.
In a case where there is a conflict of opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties and the interpretation of the parties is at issue, the contents of the juristic act, motive and background of such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the genuine intent of the parties, etc. shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance
(1) In cases where a party to a contract is deemed a party to a contract in the name of another person (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212, Jan. 25, 2018). In addition, in cases where an actor who enters into a contract and another person perform a juristic act in the name of another person, the party to the contract shall be determined according to the same intent if the actor and the other party agree with each other. Where the actor and the other party fail to agree with each other, the party shall be determined in accordance with the contract’s specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and conclusion of the contract.
(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da34584, 2014Da34591 (Joint Decision) Decided June 11, 2015 (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da34591 (Joint Decision).
Judgment
As to whether the party who entered into the instant repair contract with the Plaintiff is not the non-party company, it is against the health care unit, Gap evidence 1-1, and Gap evidence 2-3, and the Ulsan Tax Office for the trial.