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. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows: 4. Refund money is paid to the Plaintiff under Part 7 of Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, the court agrees to the portion of the good faith in planning and development after the vehicle.

5. The defendant shall pay 33% of the share earnings to the plaintiff accurately with the settlement of accounts at the time of subsequent settlement (the second and third settlement).

With the exception of adding "1. A." as stated in the judgment of the first instance, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim for settlement agreement

A. In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it shall be objectively interpreted that the parties expressed their intent in accordance with the contents of the language stated in the disposal document, barring any special circumstances. In a case where there are differences in the interpretation of a contract between the parties concerned, the interpretation of the parties expressed in the disposal document is at issue, the following should 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

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da5336, 5343 delivered on January 24, 2003). B.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as above, comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts and the purport of testimony and the entire pleadings by witnesses F and G, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as to the method of payment of KRW 40,000,000, out of the premise that the Defendant’s profits to be paid to the Plaintiff are KRW 257,000,000, the entire content of the instant agreement, was determined that the Defendant returned the profits to the Plaintiff and paid them to the Plaintiff from the Culture Entertainment.

However, if the Defendant was unable to return KRW 40,000,000 due to the circumstances on the part of the entertainment, and thus, it was impossible for the Defendant to pay it according to the above method, the entire proceeds.