2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 7, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a contract for the construction of the Health Center with C and the Defendant registered as a business operator (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (b) completed the entire remainder of the construction except for the partial completion work; (c) however, only KRW 46,00,000 out of the total construction cost was paid; and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 61,307,60 and damages for delay.

B. Since the Plaintiff’s cause of claim is not clear, it will be divided into the following arguments.

1) First, it is deemed that the Plaintiff asserts contractual liability to the Defendant as a party to the instant contract. The question of who is the party to the contract constitutes a matter of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract, and the interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning given to the party involved in the act of expressing intent. In the case where the content of a certain contract is written between the parties to the contract, it shall not be subject to the phrase used in writing, but it shall be reasonably interpreted from the objective meaning given to the party involved in the act of expressing intent by the content of the document regardless of the party’s inner intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 1995; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 200). If the objective meaning of the text in this case is clear, the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the written contract should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da72572, May 24, 12).