The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

A. Where a contractual party prepares in writing a certain content of a contract as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the contractual party’s expression of intent shall be recognized unless there are special circumstances. However, where the objective meaning of the text is not clearly expressed, the parties’ internal intent shall be comprehensively considered, regardless of the parties’ internal intent, such as the motive and circumstance in which the contract is made, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the contract to be achieved by the contract, transaction practices, etc., and the contents of the contract between the parties shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, general common sense of society, and transaction norms, so that they are in

In particular, if the content of a contract claimed by one party imposes a serious liability on the other party, the content of the contract should be interpreted more strictly.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da3103 delivered on October 26, 1993, etc.). B.

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on its adopted evidence. ① In the literal interpretation of Article 2 of the instant Financial Advisory Agreement, the term “SPC” refers to the acquisition of the total commercial paper (as referred to as “ABCP”) actually issued by a specialized purpose company (SPC) as collateral with assets such as sales bonds, lease bonds, and corporate bonds, and the total acceptance guarantee under paragraph (2) shall be deemed to be an expression of intent to accept the total amount of ABCP issued actually. ② The Defendant refused to conclude a contract through the previous financial advisory agreement that specified ABCP total acceptance in the Plaintiff’s scope of business, but the Plaintiff made a total acceptance undertaking.