Although the Defendant stated the above loan certificate as the borrower, the Defendant asserted that the amount is only used by the guarantor C in the lawsuit related to the contract for sales in Busan D apartment 327 household, which was the Chairperson of the Countermeasures, and thus, the Defendant does not bear any obligation other than C.

In contrast, who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating the intent, and in cases where the contents of a contract are written between the parties to a contract, it shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing the intent according to the contents of the written statement, regardless of the internal intent of the parties, even though it is not attached to the written statement. In such cases, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da2245 Decided April 26, 2013). If the description of the evidence No. 1 and the testimony of the witness C are added to the purport of the entire pleadings, it is clear that the Defendant in this case is recorded as the borrower in the loan certificate. The reasons for preparing the loan are that the Plaintiff lent the corresponding amount of money to the litigation expenses involving the Defendant and C, and that the Defendant, who was well aware of the ability to repay until the time when the loan certificate was drawn up, was the borrower, and that C, which was known at the time when the loan certificate was drawn up through the Defendant, was recorded as the surety. Thus, the Defendant is the Plaintiff.