(영문) 대법원 2015.12.23.선고 2015다232217 판결

The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff B is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Southern District Court.

The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff A is dismissed.

The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant are assessed against the Defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Plaintiff B’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below: ① Plaintiff B, through D, granted KRW 30 million to all tenants of the instant store; ② falsely speaks that the former tenant will find if leaving KRW 30 million to the real estate office; ② the Defendant, through B, delivered KRW 5 million to E, who is an employee of the real estate brokerage office, on July 5, 2012; and Plaintiff B, through D, intended to deliver the same to tenants; ② the Defendant delivered KRW 25 million to E through D on August 1, 2012; ③ Plaintiff B, who was aware of the fact that Plaintiff B, prepared a receipt of KRW 30 million, which was automatically received KRW 30 million, and had the tenant receive KRW 30 million from the former tenant; and subsequently, Plaintiff B, upon receiving the above money from the former tenant, was aware that the former tenant could have received KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the latter tenant, and thereby, acknowledged the Defendant’s liability for damages.

However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

In order to establish liability for damages caused by deception, one of the parties to a transaction shall be liable for a legal act which is deemed not to have been caused by deception, which would have been caused by mistake and would not have been caused by such deception (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da62641, Apr. 12, 2007).

In light of the above legal principles, in order to establish the liability for damages caused by the Plaintiff B’s deception, the circumstance should be recognized that the Defendant would not pay KRW 30 million for the premium without the Plaintiff’s deception as above. However, it is difficult to ascertain whether there was such circumstance solely on the ground of the lower judgment.

Rather, in the premium agreement, the location of the store, business facilities, etc. are considered as important matters, and it is difficult to see that the subject of attribution is considered as important matters of transaction.

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below and evidence duly adopted and examined the judgment below, B and D were the sectional owners of B and D around 200, 200, and they were aware of the status of B and D, and D owned 20 stores at J, and they were leased and obtained income if several stores were owned thereafter. On October 10, 205, Plaintiff B and D purchased ownership of each 1/2 shares of the instant store from 000 to 00 and operated as 2000, which were leased to 200, and the Plaintiffs did not want to obtain ownership of the instant rent for the first time after the expiration of the lease contract term, and the lease contract was renewed every year by 00,000,000,000 won for the first time after the expiration of the lease contract.

In light of the above circumstances, it is sufficient to view that the DO representing the Defendant has a value to pay KRW 30 million for the instant store based on its experience, knowledge, etc., and it is reasonable to deem that it has paid KRW 30 million for the instant store. It cannot be readily concluded that whether the other party to whom the premium was paid is a former lessee or Plaintiff B has changed depending on whether the other party to whom the premium was paid is a previous lessee or Plaintiff B.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the Defendant sustained damages equivalent to the premium due to Plaintiff B’s deception. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on tort caused by deception, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff B’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, who is the party to the contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. Interpretation of an expression of intent is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the party gave to the expression of intent. In a case where the content of a contract is written between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning that the party gives to the expression of intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written regardless of the party’s inner intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 1995; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 2000; 200Da72572, May 24, 2002; 200Da41247, Nov. 29, 2012).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that it is reasonable to see the defendant as lessee, not D, according to the lease agreement of this case. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

3. Conclusion

The part of the lower judgment against Plaintiff B is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s appeal against Plaintiff A is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against Plaintiff A are assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.