1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as described in paragraph 2 below, since the third party’s “3. Judgment” in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance

2. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the defendant, on April 6, 2011, proposed that the plaintiff be liable to pay to the borrower the above amount of KRW 100,000,000 with loans from our bank as security for the execution of the construction work of this case, with loans from our bank, and with loans from the lender at the time of completion of the construction work of the new construction of the new construction of the new construction of the reconstruction association of Blue, the full amount borrowed shall be repaid, and monthly interest and other expenses shall be borne by the borrower until the loan is repaid.

The date of repayment: The issuance and delivery of the cash tea certificate (No. 1, 201; hereinafter “the cash tea certificate of this case”) stated as “the date of payment: October 30, 201; and on the same day, the defendant obtained a certificate of the personal seal impression in his name and issued it to the plaintiff with the certificate of the personal seal impression.

However, barring any special circumstance, a disposal document shall be interpreted as having expressed its intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, barring any special circumstance. However, in cases where there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the objective to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da102452, Oct. 13, 201). In light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of pleading as a whole in the statement in subparagraph 5