All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

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

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A. The interpretation of a declaration of intent is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating the intent, and in cases where the contents of a contract are written between the parties to the contract in writing, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules as to the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating the intent according to the contents of the written statement regardless of the parties’ inner intent, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the content of the written statement is written in writing (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 1995; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 2000). In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent shall be recognized as the content of the written statement, unless there are any special circumstances such as where it is clear and acceptable to deny the contents.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44471 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.). In particular, in a case where the content of a contract claimed by one of the parties imposes a serious liability on the other party, the content of the language should be more strictly interpreted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da6465 delivered on May 23, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72572 delivered on May 24, 2002, etc.). In addition, the court determines whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules based on the ideology of social justice and equity with free evaluation of evidence, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The court below’s judgment did not go beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and the facts duly confirmed are the court of final appeal.