1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court of first instance has sufficient grounds for admitting the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and judgment on the issues, etc.).

The reasons to be stated by this court are as follows, excluding the part of “A” No. 8 of the first instance judgment, which is set forth in Section 4, Section 8 of the first instance judgment. Thus, it is identical to the reasons for the first instance judgment.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. Determination 1) Where the content of a contract between the parties to the relevant legal doctrine is written in writing as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the intent as stated in the text should be recognized, barring any special circumstances. However, where the objective meaning of the text is not clearly expressed, the content of the text and the motive and background leading up to the conclusion of the contract, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the contract to be achieved by the contract, transaction practices, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account regardless of the parties’ internal intent, and the contents of the contract shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense, and common sense and transaction norms so as to be consistent with the ideology of social justice and equity. In particular, where one party imposes a significant liability on the other party or infringes on or restricts important parts of rights, such as ownership, etc., which the party claims, the contents of the contract should be more strictly interpreted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da14115, Jun. 26, 2014).