The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Upon citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could not seek the return of unjust enrichment against Defendant C and the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) who participated in the Defendant C and the Intervenor’s Intervenor in the extradition lawsuit of the building of this case after the instant conciliation, and that the Defendant C delivered the building of this case to the Plaintiff since two months have not passed since the dismissal of appeal was sentenced in the final appeal at the above extradition lawsuit, and the building of this case was deemed to have been recognized as the shares of Defendant C. At the time of the instant conciliation, it appears that the parties would not separately claim the benefits arising from the use of the building of this case. In light of its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff could not seek the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant C, other than those stipulated in the conciliation protocol, and that the Plaintiff could not claim the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant C, as long as it could not claim the return of unjust enrichment against the Defendant C.
2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept. A.
If the objective meaning of a juristic act is not clearly expressed through the language and text expressed by the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of society and the common sense of transaction, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motives and developments leading up to the juristic act, the purposes and genuine intent to be achieved by the said juristic act, transaction practices, etc.