1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is re-examineed in light of the circumstances alleged by the plaintiff, and the fact-finding and judgment in the court of first instance

Therefore, the court's explanation on this case is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplementary judgment on the plaintiff's assertion below. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion of supplementary determination is that a person who lent KRW 140,000 to the Plaintiff on October 21, 2015 is not the Defendant but H, and the secured creditor of the instant mortgage establishment registration is also H, and thus, the Defendant was erroneous in paying dividends on the premise that he is the secured creditor

The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly determine the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating, and where the contents of a contract are written in writing as a disposal document between the parties, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expressing intent shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the document, regardless of the internal intent of the parties, even though it is not attached to the phrase used in the document. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and contents of the declaration of intention shall be acknowledged as

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010). Furthermore, the burden of proof on the aforementioned special circumstances is on the part of asserting the facts inconsistent with the language and text of the disposition document.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da31308, Sept. 10, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate stating that the Defendant borrowed KRW 140,000 from the Defendant on October 21, 2015, and the same content as of November 4, 2015.