The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1.(a)

The law is, in principle, a universal norm with the same binding power against many and unspecified persons.

Therefore, the interpretation of the law should be objectively reasonable by clarifying its standard meaning, and it should not be prejudicial to legal stability by maintaining consistency that all people can agree as much as possible.

In addition, since positive law is stipulated in consideration of universal and typical matters, it is also necessary to interpret that the law has a concrete validity so that it can be the most reasonable solution to the specific case when applying the law to various cases that occur in the reality of society.

In short, the goal of legal interpretation should be to find concrete feasibility within the scope that does not undermine legal stability.

In addition, as far as possible, a systematic and logical interpretation method that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose, history of the enactment and amendment, harmony with the entire legal order, relationship with other Acts and subordinate statutes should be made appropriate in response to the request for interpretation of this Act.

On the other hand, if the text of the law itself consists of relatively clear concepts, in principle, another interpretation method is no longer necessary or limited.

In addition, even though it is intended to interpret the terms used in the provisions of any Act differently from the ordinary meaning of the text and language by emphasizing the legislative intent and purpose of the Act, it cannot disregard other provisions in the Act and the systematic relationship with other Acts or harmony with the entire legal system, so there is a certain limit.

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da81035 Decided April 23, 2009