The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

who is the party to the contract is an issue of interpretation of the intent of the party involved.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). In cases where there are differences in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties concerned, and the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in a disposal document is at issue, the relevant text and language should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively considering the contents of the contract, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the purpose to be achieved by

(1) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall freely and without consideration, determine whether a factual assertion is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The facts duly confirmed by the court below that the court below did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and that the court of final appeal shall bind the court of final appeal.

(1) On June 30, 2010, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, acquired all rights pursuant to the above MOU, without being deemed a party to the MOU. 432.

In addition, the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendants' failure to allocate a temporary reclaimed land in 2012 constitutes the defendants' tort is groundless, and (2) the defendants' assertion that they are liable for damages due to the infringement of a third party's claim or tort under Article 35 (1) and (2) of the Civil Act is groundless.

In the above judgment of the court below.