2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff carried out the business of granting a license for reclamation of public waters and authorization of an implementation plan for the FF fishing village fraternity separate from the instant construction project. As the instant contract is terminated, the Defendants drafted the instant agreement by allowing the Plaintiff to pay business promotion expenses and service expenses individually paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff regarding the said business. Therefore, the Defendants are obliged to pay each of 200 million won and its delay damages to the Plaintiff. 2) The creditors under the instant agreement asserted by the Defendants are H working as directors.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendants is unreasonable.

B. Determination 1) A party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. The interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party gave to the expression of intent. In the event that the content of a contract is written in writing between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning that the party gives to the expression of intent according to the written contents, regardless of the party’s inner intent, should be reasonably interpreted. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, it is possible to understand the existence of the party’s expression of intent in the instant agreement as to whether the party is the Plaintiff, and the entire purport of the evidence presented under the foregoing paragraph 1.