The judgment below

This part of the conjunctive claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The interpretation of a juristic act is objectively established by the parties’ objective determination of the meaning that the parties gave to the act of expressing the intent. In the event of a conflict of opinion regarding the interpretation of a contract between the parties, the interpretation of a juristic act 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, the purpose to achieve the agreement

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da76603 Decided March 13, 2008, etc.). B.

The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveal the following facts.

(1) The Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of supporting the market of small and medium enterprise products, which is engaged in department store business, mail order business, electronic commerce transaction business, etc., and the Defendant is a company established for the purpose of semester, semester, wholesale

Meanwhile, D, E, and F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “G3 companies,” and each of them is referred to as “D”, “E”, and “F”) as a distribution company related to the so-called special trading business, such as points driving business, and the actual operator of G3 companies is K.

(2) Around October 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with D to purchase and sell goods to carry out a special trading business, such as the Plaintiff’s point landing business, and continued to renew the contract. Around November 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on entrustment with E and F with the same content as that of E and F. According to the entrustment contract, ① point landing business and other business (corporate employees and employees welfare sunset business, etc.) are subject to entrustment, and ② G3 purchases goods in its name and supplies them to the Plaintiff and supply them to the Plaintiff’s customer company such as credit card company on behalf of the Plaintiff.