1. The defendant shall pay 50 million won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from March 12, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of Gap evidence No. 1 (defluence of the cause of the claim), it can be acknowledged that the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million on December 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and there is no reflective evidence.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 50 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 12, 2016 to the day of full payment after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, as the plaintiff seeks.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the defendant demanded that the family members of the network C including the plaintiff et al. shall be responsible for the death of the network C while interfering with the business, such as finding the plaintiff's workplace and avoiding disturbance after the plaintiff's birth C was deceased, and that the expression of intention as seen above is invalid as it is considerably lost fairness due to old times, rash, andless experience. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no reason to believe that it is invalid.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that since the defendant's expression of intention indicated in Gap evidence No. 1 (Incompetence) is a content that the deceased's heir would pay KRW 50 million to the deceased's heir, the plaintiff cannot seek payment.

Where a contract is prepared in writing as a disposal document between the parties to the contract, and the objective meaning of the language is clear, barring special circumstances, the existence and content of the expression of intent shall be recognized. In particular, in a case where a significant impact on the legal relationship between the parties by interpreting differently from the objective meaning of the text, the contents of the language shall be more strictly interpreted.

Supreme Court Decision 208Da46531 Decided November 13, 2008, Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44471 Decided November 29, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da4471 Decided November 29, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision June 12, 2014.