{"id":3478,"date":"2022-05-10T04:49:53","date_gmt":"2022-05-10T04:49:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/?p=3478"},"modified":"2022-05-10T04:49:53","modified_gmt":"2022-05-10T04:49:53","slug":"contract-interpretation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/?p=3478","title":{"rendered":"Contract interpretation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The\tfundamental rule of contract interpretation is that contractual\tlanguage must in principle be given effect as it is written. The\tKorean Supreme Court (the highest court in Korea for civil and\tcriminal matters) has consistently ruled as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once the court is satisfied with the authenticity of the contractual document, the court must, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to deny what is written, recognise the existence and the content of the parties\u2019 intent as it is written on the contractual document. (Supreme Court Judgment 2002Da23482 dated 28 June 2002)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The\timportance of contractual language is further emphasised as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In interpreting a contract, if the parties\u2019 true intent is not knowable, the interpretation should be based on the intent inferred from outward expressions rather than the intent inside the parties\u2019 mind because what constitutes the contractual intent is the intent inferred from expressions, i.e., the expressed intent, rather than the intent which was held in the parties\u2019 mind.2<\/sup><\/a><\/p>2<\/a>Ibid.

<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\tThe Supreme Court also ruled that \u201ccontract interpretation aims to\testablish clearly the objective meaning the parties assigned to the\texpression. While the court is not always constrained solely by the\tlanguage chosen by the parties, the court\u2019s task is nevertheless\tto base itself on the contractual language and to interpret\treasonably the objective meaning which the parties assigned to the\texpression regardless of what the parties might have entertained in\ttheir mind.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\tIf the objective meaning is unclear from the language of the\tcontract, the Supreme Court has given guidance as follows: \u201cwhen\tthe court has to interpret the intent of the parties because there\tis a difference of views as to the interpretation of the contract,\tthe interpretation must be done reasonably in accordance with logic\tand rules of experience, taking account comprehensively of the\ttextual content, motives and circumstances leading to the agreement,\tthe aim and purpose which are to be achieved by the agreement as\twell as the parties\u2019 true intent.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a>The Supreme Court has\talso held that the interpretation must be consonant with the notions\tof justice and equity as well as the common sense of the general\tpublic and the ordinary commercial understanding.5<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n


<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3<\/a>Supreme\tCourt Judgment 2000Da40858 dated 23 March 2001. Also\tsee Supreme Court Judgment 2002Da23482 dated 28 June 2002.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4<\/a>Supreme\tCourt Judgment 93Da32668 dated 25 March 1994; Supreme\tCourt Judgment 96Da1320 dated 9 April 1996. Similar\trulings are repeated in a number of cases. For example, Supreme\tCourt Judgment 92Da47236 dated 24 August 1993. The\t\u201crules of experience\u201d mean rules derived from the experience of\tliving in society (\uc0ac\ud68c\uc0dd\ud65c\uc5d0\t\uc788\uc5b4\uc11c\uc758 \uacbd\ud5d8 \ubc95\uce59). \t<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5<\/a>Supreme\tCourt Judgment 2008Da90095, 90101 dated 14 May 2009.<\/p>\n

<\/a>\"image_print\"<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The fundamental rule of contract interpretation is that contractual language must in principle be given effect as it is written. The Korean Supreme Court (the highest court in Korea for civil and criminal matters) has consistently ruled as follows: Once the court is satisfied with the authenticity of the contractual document, the court must, in ...continue reading \"Contract interpretation\"<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3478","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-uncategorized","h-entry","hentry","h-as-article"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3478","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3478"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3478\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3478"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3478"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawlec.korea.ac.kr\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3478"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}