beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Scope of Plaintiff’s service under the instant contract
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's service duty stipulated in the contract of this case is limited to the provision of service until the authorization of the implementation plan of new apartment construction of this case is obtained.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's service duty stipulated in the contract of this case includes not only the approval of the implementation plan but also all the services provided for the approval of the final use, such as the possession of all documents and the rental service, until the approval of the final use is obtained thereafter.
B. 1) As long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the contents of the statement. If there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties, and the interpretation of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules so as to conform to the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the statement, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. In particular, if the contents of the contract alleged by one party imposes a serious liability on the other party, it shall be more strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da72572, May 24, 2002; 2003Da1518, Feb. 10, 2006).