1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff’s history of June 10, 2009, Seoul Matro 2, and the history of 2.

1. The cited part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance from “1. Basic Facts” to “2. Party’s assertion” among the grounds of this judgment, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts that vary from the judgment of the first instance court;

3. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. As long as the establishment of a disposition document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated therein. Where there is any difference in the interpretation of a contract between the parties and the interpretation of the intent expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the relevant legal doctrine shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the contents of the text, the motive and circumstance of the agreement, the purpose of the agreement to be achieved by the agreement

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da46210, Jul. 23, 2009). In cases where the content of a contract claimed by one of the parties imposes a serious liability on the other party, the content of the text should be more strictly interpreted.

(2) In the case of a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the existence of an obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da39873, Apr. 28, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 2004Da52231, Jul. 8, 2005). Meanwhile, in the case of a lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the existence of an obligation, the Defendant, a creditor, bears the burden of proving the existence of an obligation to the Plaintiff, based on the relevant contract, as to the elements of the legal relationship with the Plaintiff, based on the relevant contract, unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998). B.

Judgment

The following are examined.