The appeal is 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. The interpretation of a juristic act is to clearly define the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating, and it is not bound to the text, but to reasonably interpret the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating, according to the contents of the text, regardless of its internal intent.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Da43486 delivered on November 26, 199, 2006Da77197 delivered on June 26, 2008, etc.). In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed by the party’s language and text, where such objective meaning is not clearly revealed, the content of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the juristic act revealed by the party’s assertion and proof, the purpose and genuine intent of the party to be achieved by the said juristic act, transaction practices, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account, and it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense and transaction norms so that it conforms to the ideology of social justice and equity.

In particular, more strict interpretation should be made in cases where the contents of the legal act claimed by one of the parties seriously affect the rights and obligations of the other party.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33607 Decided January 19, 2001 and Supreme Court Decision 2005Da68950 Decided April 13, 2007, etc.). 2. A.

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the following facts are revealed.

1) Around December 2010, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with Defendant B to purchase KRW 25-type rental apartment occupancy rights at KRW 32 million from Defendant B via E, and paid KRW 32 million to Defendant B by March 4, 2011. (2) On January 20, 2011, Defendant B entered into the instant contract with Defendant B at KRW 25-type rental apartment occupancy rights at KRW 32 million.