A legal act is an act that creates a legal effect through an expression of intent, such as a will or contract. Interpretation of legal acts is necessary when the intention of the signer is unclear or is interpreted differently from the signer’s true intention. Interpretation of legal acts plays an important role in determining the content of legal acts and judging whether they are established and valid, and methods such as natural interpretation, normative interpretation, and supplementary interpretation are used. It provides legal stability and predictability and contributes to maintaining social order.
In civil law, a legal act is an act that creates a legal effect with an expression of intention as an essential element, such as a will or contract. A manifestation of intention is an indication of intention for the purpose of creating a certain legal effect, which can include not only words or writing, but also gestures such as nodding or raising the head, or silence. In legal acts, it is not a problem if the intention of the marker, the person who has expressed the intention, is so clear that there is no room for theory. However, if the intention of the signer is unclear, or if the recipient of the sign, who is the other party to the sign, takes the signer’s intention to be different from the signer’s true intention, interpretation of the legal act is necessary. Interpretation of a legal act determines the content of a legal act and plays an important role in determining whether a legal act is established and valid.
The interpretation of a legal act must be reasonable according to certain standards. The purpose the parties intended to achieve by the legal act and the circumstances at the time of the legal act are the priority criteria. For example, when entering into a contract for the sale of real estate, the seller and buyer will have fully discussed and agreed on the use or utilization of the property beforehand. Interpreting legal acts based on these circumstances minimizes conflicts of interest between the parties. In addition, the content of legal acts is usually based on the custom of the field, which can be used as a guide for interpretation. If the parties are silent or unclear about the custom, the custom will be followed, but a custom that violates mandatory rules, which are norms that apply regardless of the will of the parties, will not be recognized. On the other hand, if there is no custom related to the legal act, and the parties have not expressed their intention to differ from the voluntary rule, the voluntary rule can be taken as the standard for interpreting the legal act. The principle of good faith, which states that the exercise of rights and the fulfillment of obligations should be done in good faith, can also be used as a standard for the interpretation of legal acts.
The methods of interpretation of legal acts include natural interpretation, normative interpretation, and supplementary interpretation. Natural interpretation is an interpretation that reveals the true intention of the signer, and it is an interpretation that reveals the true intention of the signer by synthesizing all the circumstances without being bound by the signing act such as the wording of the contract. In the case of a contract, if there is a consensus of intention between the signer and the recipient of the sign, even if there was a sign that was different from the signer’s intention, the original purpose of the sign is considered to have been achieved and the content of the legal act is determined according to the signer’s intention. In this case, the doctrine of harmless misrepresentation applies, which means that a misrepresentation does not impair the intention of the marker. Natural interpretation also includes clarifying the meaning of a will based on the testator’s intention.
Normative interpretation is an interpretation that explores the objective meaning of the marking behavior. This interpretation may be done to protect the recipient of the marking, who may have relied on the marker’s marking behavior. Normative interpretation does not interpret a legal act based solely on how the recipient of the representation actually understood the representation, but rather how a reasonable person exercising due care in light of the circumstances would have understood the representation. In a contract, it would be a normative interpretation to recognize a marking recipient’s claim if the marking recipient made a claim consistent with the contract and did not know the marker’s true intention to make a claim different from the contract. However, an interpretation may also recognize the marker’s intention if the marking recipient knew the marker’s intention or, even if the marker did not know, was unaware of the marker’s intention due to the marking recipient’s negligence. If the content of the legal act resulting from the normative interpretation is different from the marker’s intention, the marker’s legal interest may be infringed. In this case, the marker may be able to revoke the marking by proving that the marker was mistaken in his or her expression of an important intention in the legal act, but the marker cannot revoke an expression of intention due to gross negligence.
Supplementary interpretation means the supplementation of a defective legal act, which is considered after the establishment of the legal act has been recognized under the natural or normative interpretation. Supplementary interpretation can be done in any legal act, but it is most often done in contracts. In a contract, when a situation that was not contemplated at the time the contract was concluded arises after the contract was concluded and becomes an issue, the interpretation of the legal act by considering how the parties would have contracted if they had known about the situation at the time the contract was concluded can be considered as a supplementary interpretation. In this case, a situation that was not contemplated at the time of the contract becomes a defect in the legal act.
For example, doctors A and E, who operate hospitals in different places, contract to exchange their hospitals and move them. Afterward, Eun claimed that the exchange agreement was invalid and expressed his intention to return to his old practice, and K sought to have the exchange agreement validated, claiming that it prohibited Eun from opening a practice in or near his old practice. In this case, the court determined that the cause of the dispute was that the parties did not consider the possibility that the other party would soon return to the old hospital at the time of the exchange agreement and did not make any provision for it. If one of the parties immediately returned to the old hospital, it would jeopardize the purpose of the entire agreement. Therefore, the court concluded that if the parties had expected the other party to return to the old hospital within two to three years after the completion of the exchange agreement, they would have agreed to a prohibition on the return during that period, and the court ruled in favor of K’s claim. If so, the decision was based on a supplementary interpretation.
Such interpretations of legal acts play an important role in providing legal stability and predictability. It clarifies legal relationships based on trust between parties, minimizes legal disputes, and contributes to maintaining social order. Therefore, interpretation of legal acts is not just a matter of solving problems between parties, but an important means of maintaining legal stability in society as a whole.
The role of courts in the interpretation of legal acts is also very important. Courts provide standards for the interpretation of legal acts, and in doing so, they help maintain legal stability in society as a whole. By providing reasonable and fair interpretations that take into account the specific circumstances of individual cases, courts help resolve legal disputes and build social trust. In this process, courts maintain consistency in legal interpretation and clarify the standards for interpreting legal acts to promote legal stability.
