2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

As to this, the Defendant asserts that the real estate of this case was donated to the Defendant by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff delegated the Defendant with the authority to dispose of the real estate of this case, and then renounced his share out of the sale price of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is groundless.

2. If the objective meaning of the language and text is clear where the parties to the judgment prepare in writing a certain contract as a disposal document, barring special circumstances, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized. In a case where the objective meaning of the language and text otherwise affects the legal relations between the parties, the more strict interpretation of the language and text should be more strictly interpreted.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da64253 Decided October 15, 2015). According to each description of Eul evidence 3-1 and Eul evidence 3-2 (the plaintiff disputes the establishment of the authenticity with respect to Eul evidence 3-1, or there is no dispute with the plaintiff's signature and seal affixed, and thus the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established.), the plaintiff prepared a written confirmation to the defendant around 2013, that " he was a co-owner holding 1/5 of shares in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jung-gu, Seoul. He was the ownership of Jung-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government and will not raise any objection with respect to the loan and the sale price." Since the objective meaning of the text is clear, the plaintiff is in accordance with the language and text.