All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

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

1. Where the truth and indication of declaration of intention are different and there is an agreement between the other party with respect to the disagreement, a false declaration of agreement is concluded;

(1) In the event that an interpretation of a declaration of intent is at issue between the parties, the parties shall be reasonably construed in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the declaration of intent, the motive and background leading up to the declaration of intent, the purpose to be achieved by the declaration of intent, the genuine intent of the parties, etc.

(2) In light of the purport of the entire pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence, the court shall decide whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065, May 27, 2005; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da15816, Sept. 20, 2007). The court shall decide whether the facts duly confirmed by the court of final appeal, as the lower court did not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

(Article 432 of the same Act). 2. The lower court, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, determined as follows. A.

On April 28, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted a loan agreement to the effect that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 900 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the account of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) and would repay the borrowed amount of KRW 900 million from the Defendant Co., Ltd. on October 27, 2008, and thereafter, the Defendant Co., Ltd prepared three copies of the loan agreement to the effect that “the Defendant Co., Ltd. will repay the borrowed amount of KRW 900 million to the Plaintiff,” and that “the Defendant Co., Ltd. will pay the borrowed amount of KRW 900 million to the Plaintiff and Defendant D will pay the borrowed amount of KRW 27, 2008.”