A. On January 13, 201, Defendant B entered into a standard form of loan transaction with the purport that the loan amount of KRW 200,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) was granted by the Plaintiff as 3% per interest month (hereinafter “instant loan contract”). At the time, Defendant C signed and sealed the instant loan contract as a joint guarantor.

B. On the same day, the Defendants jointly prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff an agreement on the repayment of loan amounting to KRW 200,000,000 on an online basis, and in the event that the payment of interest is in arrears for not less than three days, an amount calculated by adding 1% to the principal to the interest shall be paid as interest for arrears (hereinafter “instant agreement”). Moreover, the Defendants jointly issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 260,00,000, issue date, January 13, 2011, including the purport that the interest would be paid as interest for the principal.

C. The Defendants did not repay the principal and interest of the instant loan to the Plaintiff until the date of closing the argument in this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The interpretation of a declaration of intention in the form of a document clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating the intent, and in the case where the content of a contract is written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, it shall not be bound to the phrase used in the document, but it shall be reasonably interpreted that the parties have given it to the act of indicating the intent in writing, regardless of the party’

In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence of the expression of intent and its contents should be recognized, unless there are special circumstances, and Supreme Court Decision 13 May 13, 2010.