The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As a matter of course, the interpretation of a juristic act clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expressing the intent, where there is a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties, the interpretation of a juristic act shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by the agreement

(See Supreme Court Decisions 94Da1142 Decided April 29, 1994; 201Da5134 Decided December 27, 201, etc.). Meanwhile, inasmuch as a lessor’s duty to allow a lessee to use and benefit from an object under a lease agreement and a lessee’s duty to pay rent is in a mutually corresponding relationship, a lessee may refuse payment of rent to the extent that such a lessor’s failure to perform his/her duty to allow the lessor to use and benefit from the object and thereby impedes the use and benefit of the object.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu1332, 13349 Decided June 13, 1989; 96Da4778, 44785 Decided April 25, 1997, etc.). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts are revealed.

On April 13, 201, E, who led the conclusion of a contract on behalf of the Plaintiff, concluded a subcontract for the lease of sand production machinery and sand production (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to lease sand production machinery installed in Gyeongnam Development-gun C (hereinafter “instant permitted site”) to the Defendant.

B. Paragraph 1 of the instant contract states, “The Defendant succeeds to the terms and conditions of the contract entered into with Taelim Co., Ltd., the original company of the Plaintiff, as they are,” while Paragraph 4 states, “the installation cost of machinery shall be paid at KRW 30 million after two months after the date of the contract.” Paragraph 9 states, “All other provisions are both the Plaintiff and the original company.”