1. Where the authenticity of a disposition document is acknowledged, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be interpreted that the parties expressed their intent in accordance with the objective contents of the language and text stated therein. However, where the interpretation of intent is at issue because of different opinions on the interpretation of a contract between the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background of the agreement, the purpose to

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below on May 13, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da67264, 67271, Oct. 13, 201; 2011Da4677, Oct. 13, 201). 2. In light of the following, the court below determined that: (a) the shares of this case were trusted in title to the Defendant; (b) there was no dispute between the parties; (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant provided that “stocks are traded between executives and employees;” (d) there is a provision that “the shares will be traded between executives and employees; and (e) the receipts of this case also indicate that the Plaintiff would be owned by the Defendant; and (e) it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff exercised the authority as the actual owner of the shares of this case; and (e) the Plaintiff did not make an objection or take any measure against the Defendant until the Defendant sells all the shares of this case until the Defendant sold them.

3. However, the lower court’s determination is as follows.