beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Determination on the grounds of appeal relating to the interpretation of the cash custody certificate (No. 1)
A. After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the interest rate of KRW 300 million per annum from October 2, 2003, which is the date on which the Plaintiff, the Defendant (the appointed party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the appointed party C (hereinafter “C”). Meanwhile, with respect to the Defendant and C, the interest rate of KRW 16% per annum (one million per annum) was set at 16% per annum (one million per annum) and that if the principal amount is KRW 200 million due to partial repayment by the Defendant, the interest rate for KRW 12 billion per annum (two billion per annum per annum) was set at 1.2 billion per annum, and accordingly, the lower court determined that the interest rate of KRW 16 billion per annum from October 2, 2003, which is the date on which the first loan was drawn up (the “the cash custody certificate of this case”) was applied, and that the Plaintiff and C were entitled to KRW 1.3 billion per annum from the remainder of KRW 1.3 billion in lieu of the loan of KRW 1.2 billion.
B. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.
1) If the objective meaning of the language and text is clear when a contracting party prepares in writing as a disposal document, barring any special circumstance, if the existence and content of a declaration of intent should be recognized in the context of the language and text, and if the objective meaning of the language and text is not clearly expressed, the following facts or records should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules and social common sense and transaction norms so that it can be in line with the ideology of social justice and equity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44368, Jun. 24, 201).