The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, an interpretation of a legal act is to determine the objective meaning that a party gave to the act of indicating it. Although it is not subject to the phrase used in writing, it shall reasonably interpret the objective meaning given by the party to the act of indicating it according to the contents of the written statement regardless of the party’s inner intent. In a case where the objective meaning is not clearly revealed in the language indicated by the party, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and social common sense and transaction norms so as to conform to the ideology of social justice and equity, comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstance leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent of the party to the juristic act

(2) The court below held that Article 6(3) of the instant agreement provides for the duty of establishing a pledge on the shares issued by both ELD Co., Ltd. and personal investors E (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”), and Article 6(6) of the instant agreement merely provides for the method of implementation, on the ground that Article 6(3) of the instant agreement provides for the duty of establishing a pledge on the shares issued by ELD Co., Ltd. and the Defendant and other individual investors, and that Article 6(3) of the instant agreement is merely a mere method of implementation, and thus, the Defendant is liable for establishing a pledge on the shares issued to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 6(3) of the instant agreement

Examining the records in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to interpretation of legal act.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that individual investors, including ELD and the Defendant, jointly and severally liable to pledge the Plaintiff’s 30% of the shares issued E.

The lower court partially erred in its reasoning.