beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the main and ancillary claims added to the trial are all dismissed.
2. Appeal;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 145,200,000 to the Defendant’s deposit account.
B. On February 18, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment with respect to KRW 5,240 square meters (divided into KRW 3,989 square meters prior to D, October 14, 2014, and KRW 1,251 square meters prior to E) prior to the subdivision owned by C prior to the subdivision, Haan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-do (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and the F-si, 4035.3 square meters prior to the same Gun (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4 through 6, Eul evidence 2 (including sovereign numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff would be responsible for and repaid if it is necessary for the Defendant to lend money to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff would make a loan with the Defendant at an interest rate of KRW 145.2 million, 3% per month and the due date of repayment as of April 17, 2014, and that the said money was lent to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the said loan, interest thereon, and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
B. In general, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract, and the interpretation of an expression of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the party has given to the act of expressing the intent, and in cases where a written document is prepared between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning that the party gives to the act of expressing the intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written in the document, regardless of the party’s internal intent, although not being bound by the written document. In such cases, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent