A. On August 28, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent KRW 300 million to the Defendant without fixing the due date upon the Defendant’s request that the purchase fund for apartment buildings be lent on or before August 28, 2014. However, even if the Plaintiff sent a certificate of content to the Defendant and requested the Defendant to repay the above loan by March 10, 2016, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the loan amounting to KRW 300 million. Therefore, the Defendant, who was the Defendant’s argument, was obligated to pay the above loan amount to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant, who was the Defendant’s tax accountant, recommended the Plaintiff, a third village, to accept the Defendant’s recommendation and accepted the said company.

In addition, upon the request of the plaintiff, the certified tax accountant renounces his business as a certified tax accountant, works as the head of the company management headquarters, and contributed significantly to the plaintiff's assistance and the creation of business normalization and profit.

On March 28, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300 million to the Defendant as a supplementary answer to the Plaintiff. As alleged by the Plaintiff, the said money is not borrowed from the Plaintiff, but paid as compensation to the Defendant, and it is merely the preparation of a loan certificate at the Plaintiff’s request.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the said money was a loan should be dismissed.

B. The interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that a party has granted to an expression of intent. If a party prepares in writing certain terms of a contract as a disposal document, it shall not be subject to the phrase used in the document, but shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the party has given to an expression of intent in writing, regardless of the party’s internal intent, and in this case, it shall be subject to the objective interpretation of the text.