The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3

(a) If the truth and indication of a declaration of intention are not in accord and if there is an agreement with the other party concerning the disagreement, a false declaration of agreement is concluded;

In a case where multiple contracts have been concluded between the parties, whether the entire contract is indivisible, such as a single contract, ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and purpose of the conclusion of the contract, the intent of the parties, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da54659 delivered on May 16, 2003). In light of the provisions of Article 137 of the Civil Act, even if a part of a single juristic act has grounds for invalidation, if such juristic act is divisible or can be specified, if the party’s assumptive intent to maintain it is acknowledged even in the remaining parts, it is possible to invalidate that part and maintain the remainder as valid, but the burden of proof exists to the person who asserts the remainder of the part.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da204508, 2013Da204515, Jan. 29, 2015). In addition, where the interpretation of a declaration of intent becomes an issue, the interpretation of a declaration of intent between the parties ought to be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the declaration of intent, the motive and background leading up to the declaration of intent, the purpose to be achieved by the said declaration of intent,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816 Decided September 20, 2007, etc.) B.

The lower court recognized the facts as indicated in its reasoning and determined as follows.

1) Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”)

on May 9, 2011, C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “C”).