All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The interpretation of a declaration of intent is clearly confirming the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expressing intent. In a case where the parties to a contract prepare in writing any content of a contract between the parties to a contract, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules, regardless of the parties’ internal intent, the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expressing intent should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with the contents of the written intent, regardless of the parties’ internal intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 1995; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 2000). In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent should be recognized in accordance with the language, unless there are special circumstances such as where it is clear and acceptable to deny the contents of the statement.

(1) Article 201 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The court shall bind the court of final appeal on the grounds that the court of final appeal is not true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the result of the examination of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da60065, May 27, 2005; 2012Da44471, Nov. 29, 2012).”

(Article 432 of the same Act). (b)

The lower court, on the grounds the same as indicated in its reasoning, citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment and adding a part of the grounds therefor, shall: (a) the costs under Article 13(2) of the construction contract written between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant-Counterclaim”) (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) as indicated in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant construction contract”) are different from the costs under Article 13(1) of the same Act.