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, where the parties to a contract prepare in writing a certain contract as a disposition document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring special circumstances, the existence and content of the parties’ intent should be acknowledged. However, where the objective meaning of the text is not clearly revealed, the parties’ intent should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, social common sense, and transaction norms so as to be consistent with the ideology of social justice and equity by comprehensively considering the contents of the text, the motive and circumstances leading up to the conclusion of the contract, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to the contract, transaction practices, etc., regardless of the parties’ intent, in a case where the objective meaning of the text is not clearly revealed. In particular, if the contents of the contract alleged by one party imposes serious

(2) On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant calculated the expected additional sales revenue as KRW 14,751,00,000 under the name of the 50:50,000, and calculated the expected additional sales revenue to be distributed to the Defendant under the name of the 50:50,000, in advance to the contract cost under the instant contract. In light of the specific calculation process, if the expected additional sales revenue was reduced due to ex post discount, etc., it would be reasonable that the Plaintiff and the Defendant bear the relevant load portion in installments, and ② in view of Article 6(7) of the General Contract Terms and Conditions for Construction (hereinafter “General Conditions”), the construction cost under Article 4(1) of the instant contract is equal to that under the instant contract.