beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. The interpretation of a declaration of intent is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the party gave to the act of indicating it, and where the content of a contract is written between the parties to the contract in writing, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, regardless of the party’s internal intent, the objective meaning that the party gives to the act of expressing his/her intent in writing should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 1995; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 200). In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intention should be recognized in accordance with the language, unless there are special circumstances such as where it is clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44471 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.). In particular, in a case where the content of a contract claimed by one of the parties imposes a serious liability on the other party, the content of the language should be more strictly interpreted.
(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall decide whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity by free evaluation of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly determined by the court of final appeal that the court below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence are binding on the court of final appeal.
(Article 432 of the same Act). 2. The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, is as follows.