법적 판단을 위한 수단으로서의 의사해석

The task of interpreting the intention of the parties in a trial has both characteristics as a finding of fact and as a normative evaluation. Interpretation of opinion is not limited to exploring what the party’s ‘true intention’ and ‘assuming intention’ are, but the task of revealing what the parties would have decided in light of the transaction practices and the principle of good faith under the specific circumstances they are. Although the interpretation of a contract is primarily a task of confirming the contents of a legal act, the contents of a legal act and the resulting legal effects are inseparable, and in the process of confirming the contents of a contract through interpretation, the court’s value judgment intervenes to some extent. It cannot be denied that it is. This is true even considering that many of the recent judgements pronounced by the Supreme Court have ‘interpretation of intention’ as the main issue, and the majority opinion and the opposing opinion have been in conflict with it. In many cases, the court’s value-oriented judgment in interpreting opinions is part of an effort to reach the most reasonable conclusion in each case. Therefore, it cannot be viewed negatively. However, even if the judiciary has no choice but to intervene in the interpretation of the expression of intention, the principle of private autonomy must not be violated by the court intervening in the content of the contract. It should not be allowed to arbitrarily interpret the meaning of the litigation performed by the parties under the patronage status or to give a completely different meaning to the will of the legislative or administrative agency by prioritizing respect for the authority of the state agency.