1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. On May 5, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted by the parties, as to the land owned by the Defendant and the Ulsan-gun E, Ulsan-gun, etc., the “the instant construction work” is called as “the instant construction work”.

B The construction contract of the construction work in the attached Form 48,30,000, and the construction period from May 5, 2013 to December 31, 2013 is "the construction contract of the instant case".

(1) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay for the cost of equipment input and the damages for delay from July 1, 2013 to October 15, 2013, since the construction was completed on October 15, 2013.

On February 27, 2014, the Defendant prepared a construction contract of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant with a view to avoiding conflicts with the Interest Limitation Act while lending KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant for a lending period of KRW 6 months, interest of KRW 18,30,000. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant construction contract of this case constitutes false agreement and is null and void as it constitutes false agreement, and that the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim as it actually did not borrow the above money.

2. Determination

A. A disposition document concerning the cause of a claim shall be objectively interpreted as the declaration of intent of the parties in accordance with the terms and conditions indicated in the disposition document, barring any special circumstance where the authenticity is acknowledged. In the event that there is a difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the parties’ intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da23574 delivered on February 27, 2001, etc.). The Plaintiff’s.