The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

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

1. Interpretation of a juristic act shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and ordinary common sense and transaction norms, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the language and text, in a case where the objective meaning given by the parties to the juristic act is clearly decided, and where such objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the language and text indicated by the parties, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties to the juristic act, transaction practices, etc., and shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with social justice and equity ideology

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da35571, May 26, 1992). In particular, a more strict interpretation should be made in cases where the content of a contract claimed by one of the parties imposes a serious liability on the other party.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33607, Jan. 19, 2001). This is no different in relation to implied juristic acts by macroscopic.

A loan for consumption under the Civil Act takes effect when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such ownership in the same kind, quality, and quantity. Thus, a loan for consumption is not established only when the borrower has to give and receive money, etc. in reality or to acquire economic benefits such as actual revenues.

(See Supreme Court Decision 90Da14652 delivered on April 9, 191). On the contrary, even if one of the parties actually transferred the ownership of money and other substitutes to the other party, unless the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity to the same other party, the juristic act between them cannot be deemed a loan for consumption.

2.(a)

The lower court.