The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) regarding the claim for penalty shall be reversed, and this part shall be reversed.

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

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the objective meaning of the language and text is clear, barring any special circumstance, in cases where the content of a contract is prepared in writing between the parties as a disposal document, the existence and content of the expression should be recognized. However, in cases where the objective meaning of the language and text is not clearly revealed, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, general common sense, and common sense of society and transaction norms so that the parties can conform to the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively considering the contents of the language and text, the motive and background leading up to the conclusion of the contract, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the parties, and transaction practices, etc.

(2) On May 24, 2002, the court below held that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) under Article 3(1) of the General Conditions of the Contract for Construction Works (hereinafter “instant provision”) shall guarantee the payment of the loans borrowed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for land purchase costs and project promotion costs after entering into the construction contract. In light of the following: (a) the details of the instant provision was modified in the course of entering into the construction contract; (b) the developments leading up to the project financing (PF; hereinafter “PF”) conducted around January 207; (c) relationship with other provisions of the said contract; (d) delay of business after entering into the contract; and (e) the progress of discussions on countermeasures therefor, the Defendant extended the PF loan around January 207.