[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that held the person who did not indicate as a debtor in the loan contract as the actual debtor of the loan, although the loan contract was concluded according to the intent of the nominal debtor stated in the loan contract and the existence and content of the loan contract were acknowledged according to the terms and conditions of the loan contract between the parties to the contract

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the person who did not indicate as a debtor in the loan contract is the actual debtor of the loan, although the loan contract was concluded according to the intent of the nominal debtor stated in the loan contract and the existence and content of the loan contract were recognized as the parties to the contract according to the terms and conditions of the loan

Generally, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract. Interpretation of an expression of intent constitutes a matter of interpretation of the party involved in the contract. An objective meaning which the party has clearly determined the objective meaning given to the expression of the party involved in the act of expression. In a case where a written document is prepared between the parties as a disposal document, the content of a certain contract shall be reasonably interpreted according to the content of the written document, regardless of the party's internal intent (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122 delivered on June 30, 1995, Supreme Court Decisions 200Da27923 delivered on October 6, 200), barring any special circumstance, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da72572 delivered on May 24, 2002).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiffs did not conduct a credit investigation on the non-party 1 corporation or non-party 2 corporation under the loan contract and did not receive any separate collateral. The plaintiffs demanded the repayment of the loan directly to the defendant, not the non-party 1 corporation or non-party 2 corporation, and the defendant also paid 3.5 billion won as part of the loan. The above 3.5 billion won was directly processed by the non-party 3 without the actual involvement of the non-party 1 corporation or non-party 2 corporation, and the credit extension of the non-party 1 corporation or the non-party 2 corporation was unlikely to be improved for a long time after the execution of the loan in this case. Thus, the plaintiffs appeared to have implemented the loan in this case on the premise that the plaintiff was the non-party 1 corporation or the non-party 2 corporation, and the defendant also requested the non-party 1 corporation to repay the loan in this case on the premise that he was the principal agent of the loan in this case, and the prosecutor again requested the non-party 1 corporation or the non-party 2 corporation to recover the loan.

However, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept such determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the court below, the representative director of the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 corporation and the non-party 5's representative director of the non-party 1 corporation directly visit the mutual savings bank, and sign and seal the letter of credit transaction in this case, and submitted the consent to provide and utilize personal credit information necessary for the loan contract, the minutes of the board of directors of the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation. The non-party 1 corporation urged the repayment of the loan to the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation on June 20, 207, and notified the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation to make settlement oral or written statements over several occasions. The non-party 1 corporation indicated the loan repayment notice as "the non-party 1 corporation and the non-party 2 corporation to the non-party 2 corporation on June 29, 2007, and considering the above facts, it is acknowledged that the loan contract in this case was not made between the non-party 1 corporation and the defendant 2 corporation.

The court below held that the plaintiffs demanded the repayment of loans to the defendant, who is not the non-party 1 corporation or non-party 2 corporation, and the defendant also paid 3.5 billion won as part of the loans. However, according to the records, the above 3.5 billion won is the money that the defendant extended to the non-party 6 related to the non-party 1 corporation. Thus, even if the above 3.5 billion won cannot be viewed as the defendant's money, it is difficult to view that the defendant paid 3.5 billion won to the plaintiffs, even if the above money was paid to the plaintiffs, and even if considering the circumstances cited by the court below, it is difficult to recognize the defendant as the debtor of the loan transaction of this case differently from the contents of the loan contract.

Nevertheless, the court below, solely based on its reasoning, acknowledged the actual debtor of the loan of this case as the defendant, and contrary to the specific circumstance that the defendant is liable for the repayment of the loan of this case, and accepted the plaintiffs' claim. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the probative value of disposal documents and the confirmation of the parties to the contract, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)