The judgment below

This part of the conjunctive claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal as to the primary claim for a counterclaim, the interpretation of a juristic act is objectively to determine the meaning which the parties gave to the act of expressing the intent. In the event there is any controversy over the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intent of the parties indicated in the contract document is at issue, the interpretation of a juristic act shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively examining the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the following facts are revealed. (3) The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court.

① The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is a company established for the purpose of supporting the market of small and medium enterprise products, and engaged in department stores, mail order transactions, and electronic commerce transactions, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) Company B (hereinafter “B”) is a company established for the purpose of marketing promotion, miscellaneous, computer, peripheral devices, household goods, etc., and the Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) is a company established for the purpose of wholesale and retail business, such as telecommunications equipment, automobiles, electronic electrical appliances, parts, and miscellaneouss, and electronic commerce transactions.

Meanwhile, H, I, and J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “K3 company,” and each of them “H”, “I”, and “J” are a distribution company related to the so-called special trading business, such as points driving business, and K3 companies are M.

② On October 2005, the Plaintiff is required to carry out a special sales business, such as the Plaintiff’s points landing business, between H and H.