1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

In addition to adding the following judgments as to the newly asserted contents in the trial, the claim is used as follows. <2> Since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Parts to be dried;

C. As to the claim for the agreed amount as of May 9, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the instant amount to the Plaintiff on May 9, 2015, the Defendants asserted that they are liable to pay the instant amount and damages for delay to each Plaintiff. 2) In a case where a disposal document is deemed to be duly formed, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof to the contrary.

In addition, in cases where there is a different opinion on the interpretation of a contract between the parties, and the interpretation of the parties expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the contents of the text, the motive and background leading up to the agreement, the objective to be achieved by the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. shall be comprehensively considered, and it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules. In particular, if the contents of the contract claimed by one party

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da67535, Sept. 26, 2013). 3) The Defendants signed and sealed the Defendants under their joint signature at the bottom of the instant commitment, and there is no dispute between the parties. According to the evidence No. 7, the Plaintiff’s fraud complaint case against the Defendants (to the Dong Office of Busan District Prosecutors’ Office) pursuant to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 7.