1. As to the grounds of appeal regarding a sales contract and a lease contract

A. Relevant legal principles

In the event that a plaintiff asserts the absence of a declaration of intention, he/she is liable to prove the fact of such declaration to the defendant, but where the plaintiff asserts that a declaration of intention is null and void as a false declaration of intention, he/she is liable to prove the fact constituting the ground (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul

In addition, as long as the formation of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the written content of the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da23482, Jun. 28, 2002; 2004Da6065, Jun. 5, 2005).

B. The judgment of the court below

(1) Based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 68 million to the Plaintiff’s account on March 14, 201, the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to sell KRW 200 million of the purchase price (hereinafter “instant apartment”); (b) the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant on March 15, 201 after the conclusion of the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff; and (c) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s lease contract with the Defendant on March 14, 201 as its lease contract with KRW 135,00,000,000 remaining after deducting KRW 150,000 from KRW 20,000 of the purchase price of the instant apartment from KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”); and (d) the Plaintiff concluded the instant lease contract with the Defendant on March 14, 201, as its lease contract with KRW 145,000 from March 14, 2015.

(2) In addition to the above facts, the lower court acknowledged the following facts and circumstances based on the evidence, and determined that the instant sales contract and the instant lease contract were null and void by means of a false conspiracy under Article 108 of the Civil Act, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to take procedures for the registration of cancellation of the above transfer of ownership, which was completed with respect to the instant apartment, and return 1,4850,000 won, total of the rents

① While the Plaintiff’s husband, who was the Plaintiff’s husband (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), died of the interior building business on November 12, 2010, the Plaintiff was introduced with the Defendant who was well aware of the Plaintiff’s tax issues related to “G” in the Plaintiff’s transaction with D, while doing so. In light of the Plaintiff’s financial status, the relationship with the Defendant, and the details of the Plaintiff’s resident registration transfer, etc., it is difficult to view that the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is irrelevant to the resolution of the said tax issues (hereinafter referred to as “the circumstances in the first paragraph,” and each of the circumstances described in this paragraph is indicated by the same method as the Plaintiff’s property status, the relationship with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s resident registration transfer.

② The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 68 million, which is the balance of the sales price under the instant sales contract, after deducting the obligation of the instant loan from the Defendant, and then withdrawn in cash again and remitted the amount to KRW 9.7 million with the registration cost. On March 15, 2011, the Plaintiff recognized that the Plaintiff’s account transferred KRW 68 million from the Defendant’s account that was transferred from March 15, 201 to March 16, 201, was withdrawn in total on several occasions, and accords with the Plaintiff’s assertion.

In light of this, it is recognized that the Plaintiff withdrawn the amount of KRW 77 million on several occasions from March 15, 2011 to March 17, 2011 and gave payment to the Defendant.

③ Prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff had a domicile in C and the instant apartment. However, on July 25, 201, the head of the said domicile changed to C on July 26, 2011, and the address of the Plaintiff transferred to C on July 26, 2011, J, a relative of J, to 306 Dong 1201, Namyang-si, J, a relative, and lived with C in the instant apartment. In addition, in addition to the residential relationship after the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff would pay rent only without preparing a lease deposit, and the Plaintiff’s continued residence in the instant apartment is significantly different from ordinary transactional relationship.

④ On March 17, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant apartment to the Defendant; (b) decided to transfer the rent from March 17, 201 to March 16, 2012 to the Defendant’s account on the 16th day of each month; and (c) issued to the Defendant a performance memorandum stating that the said apartment rent was ordered to the Defendant, the owner of the said apartment without any condition at the time of delinquency in payment for three months (hereinafter “instant performance note”).

⑤ The Defendant, at the Incheon District Court on October 17, 201, ordered the Defendant to order the apartment of this case on March 16, 201, and paid the rent of KRW 550,000 on the 16th day of each month from March 17, 201 to March 3, 2012, and immediately ordered the Defendant to order the said real estate to file a lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as “the telephone of this case”) at the Incheon District Court on March 17, 201, the settlement was established by requesting the Plaintiff to pay the rent to the Defendant on the 16th day of each month from March 17, 201 to March 16, 2012.

④ As the Plaintiff did not pay the monthly rent on May 19, 201, the Defendant sent a text message to the Plaintiff on May 19, 201, stating, “On May 16, 201, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a text message, “I will conclude that I will terminate the contract if I will comply with the period of the monthly rent commitment.” The Defendant sent the text message, “I will know about the period from the date to the date to the date to the date to which May 16, 201 belongs.”

또한, 2011. 11.에도 피고가 원고에게 "11월달 월세 입금 부탁드립니다. 감기 조심하 셔요."라는 문자메시지를 보냈고, 이에 대해 원고가 "깜박했네요... 낼 입금할께요^^ 쬐 쏭^^"이라는 문자메시지를 보내자, 다시 원고에게 "월세 자주 깜박 잊으시면 집 비워주 세요 신경 좀 써주시길 부탁드립니다. 별일 없으시죠."라고 문자메시지를 보냈으며, 이에 원고가 "네....주인장님 좀 참으세요...!!!! 이 엄동설한에 어디로 가라고... 있을 때 베푸세용^^세이라는 문자메시지를 보냈다.

The defendant store and keep the above text messages permanently in custody until now. The content of the text messages is consistent with the plaintiff's assertion that the lease agreement of this case is false with the content of a conversation mixed with a long time, rather than the content of conversation between the lessee and the lessor who is in arrears with the overdue rent.

7) On March 8, 2011, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 111,631,172 from the Young Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Seomun Life Insurance Co., Ltd.”). From March 14, 2011, the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid interest on the instant loan including the Plaintiff’s above loan on behalf of the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the Defendant directly paid interest thereon.

③ In leasing the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff, the Defendant applied for the instant protocol of settlement against the Plaintiff without preparing a lease contract, and received the instant protocol of settlement, or where the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the overdue interest, and deposited the Plaintiff with the overdue interest, keeping the contents of the text message given and received to the Plaintiff continuously. However, the Defendant’s payment of the money to the Plaintiff was left for clear grounds, and the Defendant did not keep the ground for the Defendant’s payment of the money to the Plaintiff in cash, thereby resulting from the purpose of preparing against the National Tax Service’s fraudulent act revocation lawsuit.

C. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, as seen earlier, the burden of proving the facts constituting a false declaration of conspiracy is on the part of claiming that the content of the disposition document is a false declaration of conspiracy, and 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 clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of the disposition document is denied. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence, it is difficult to recognize some of the facts stated in the court below as it is, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the sales contract and the lease contract of this case are a false declaration of conspiracy only with the remaining facts and circumstances alone. Thus,

(1) The first instance court’s statement (4), (5), and (5) that “the instant statement of execution” and “the instant protocol of settlement, as circumstances, was prepared at the time of the instant sales contract, was prepared “the sales contract, which is a disposal document, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,” and the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant on March 17, 201, a receipt that “the Plaintiff received KRW 200 million from the Defendant,” as well as the fact that “the Plaintiff received KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,

On the other hand, around October 11, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant apartment to the Defendant in the amount of KRW 200 million; (b) the Plaintiff acquired two real debts of KRW 132,00,000 of the real debts of the two collective security rights established on the apartment of this case with the right to collateral security as the right to collateral security; and (c) the change in the name of the obligor of the right to collateral security was agreed upon on October 11, 201 by agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff; (d) the Defendant (lease) and the Plaintiff (Lessee) entered into a lease agreement on the apartment of this case; (e) from March 17, 2011 to March 16, 2012, the Plaintiff did not request the Defendant to transfer the rent in the name of KRW 550,000 from March 17, 201 to the Defendant’s new bank account; and (e) may cancel the lease agreement for more than three months; and (e) the Plaintiff did not receive a confirmation from the National Tax Service confirmation of transactions of the real property of this case.

In addition, financial materials such as the details of the transfer of the purchase price of the Defendant, the details of payment of principal and interest on the debt of the instant loan, and the details of monthly deposit are direct and objective evidence submitted by the Defendant. It is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion as to the background leading up to the purchase of the instant apartment and the acquisition of the debt of the instant loan and the developments leading up to the conclusion

(2) The facts of the Plaintiff’s timely withdrawal of KRW 77 million in cash among the circumstances indicated in the above judgment of the court below are acknowledged by the entry in the passbook, etc., but there is no objective evidence to acknowledge that the money was delivered to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the testimony, etc. related thereto is sufficient credibility, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s property increased to KRW 77 million around that time, and it is difficult to recognize it. For the same reason, among the circumstances indicated in the above judgment of the court below, the part that “the Defendant intended to prepare for a lawsuit seeking revocation of the National Tax Service’s fraudulent act by allowing the Plaintiff to pay the money to the Defendant in cash, etc.” among the circumstances indicated in the above judgment

In addition, when the Plaintiff receives KRW 68 million from the Defendant, it is difficult to understand the part that the Plaintiff did not receive all documents, such as receipts, when delivering cash amounting to KRW 77 million to the Defendant, which is not well known.

(3) The lower court determined that there was a significant difference in ordinary transactional relations between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s failure to prepare a lease contract, as shown in the above judgment of the lower court, and the Plaintiff still resided in the apartment of this case, and that the circumstances in which the Plaintiff moved his domicile to a pro-friendly place around July 26, 201,

However, in light of the fact that the time when the Plaintiff moves the address differs from the time of the instant sales contract or the lease contract, and that the Plaintiff still entered in the documents confirming the transaction of the said real estate made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant after the Plaintiff moves his address as the lessee, it is difficult to view the above circumstances at the original time as the direct standard to determine the authenticity of the instant sales contract and the lease contract.

In addition, if the National Tax Service, as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion, was for the purpose of deceiving the National Tax Service, it would be possible to prepare a usual and regular sales contract and lease contract. Nevertheless, on March 17, 201, the Plaintiff, along with the letter of performance of this case including the content of the specific agreement on the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, will take over KRW 132 million from the Defendant at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and include it in the sales price, and confirm that the obligation at the time of the change of the debtor’s name is partially repaid as a result of confirmation of the change of the debtor’s name, the name of the debtor shall be withheld in the name of the Plaintiff, but the name of the debtor shall be changed after mutual consultation, and if the credit problem of the Plaintiff arises due to the default of the payment of interest on the said obligation, the Defendant shall be liable for damages under the civil law. Such circumstance shall also be difficult to recognize that the sales contract and the lease contract

(4) The lower court determined that the instant lease agreement is false, considering that the content of text messages between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as indicated in the foregoing reasoning, is rather than the content between the genuine lessor and the lessee, and thus, it accords with the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement is false.

However, the content of text messages sent by the Defendant to the Plaintiff by demanding the Plaintiff to pay monthly rent does not entirely state that the lessor sent the monthly rent to the lessee in general lease relationship, and even after examining the overall contents, it can be deemed that the content of text messages sent to the Plaintiff by sending a monthly rent to the Defendant is somewhat complicated. However, the content of text messages sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant can be deemed as being mixed with a monthly rent, but the content of the text messages sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is excessive as to the delayed payment.

There is no particular problem. Moreover, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant entered into a false rental agreement in collusion with the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff, a lessee, responded to the above method.

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that such text messages are evidence that the sales contract and the lease contract of the apartment of this case were genuine in preparation for the investigation by the National Tax Service, but if the Plaintiff asserts, the text messages mixed with the above text messages would rather be doubtful as false. Therefore, it seems that there is no reason to give and receive text messages for the purpose of pretending such text messages.

(5) Otherwise, it is difficult to recognize the circumstances as it is, as seen earlier, that the sales contract and the lease contract in this case are false marks of conspiracy only with the circumstances acknowledged by the lower court.

(6) On the other hand, on March 31, 2011, the defendant asserted that "the defendant purchased the apartment house of this case 200 million won, and the defendant decided to take over the plaintiff's obligation of the loan of this case, and the defendant paid 380,000 won interest rate on the loan of this case from March 14, 201 to March 31, 201, to the plaintiff according to the agreement," the plaintiff lent 100,000 won to the defendant as interest rate of 2% per month on March 14, 2011, and it also received 550,000 won which the plaintiff transferred to the defendant as the monthly rent, and the above 380,000 won should be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant."

If the sales contract of this case is the genuine contract, the defendant should pay the interest on the debt of the loan of this case to the plaintiff or the plaintiff according to the agreement under the sales contract. If the sales contract of this case is not the genuine contract, the defendant has no reason to pay the interest on the debt of the loan of this case to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff asserts, as seen earlier, that “the Defendant shall receive 2% interest on KRW 100 million from the Defendant, and 550,000,000,000,000 won, which he remitted to the Defendant on the monthly basis, shall be paid by the Defendant.” However, on March 31, 2011, the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff on March 31, 201 appears to be irrelevant to any money in the name of interest on the loan of KRW 100,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

① As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that “Around March 14, 201, 100 million won was lent to the Defendant, and received KRW 2 million as the interest on the same page.” However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, on March 31, 2011, the point at which the Plaintiff did not reach one month from the time when the interest was received. As such, the Defendant’s payment to the Plaintiff on March 31, 201 cannot be deemed to have a relation with the said KRW 380,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff on March 31, 201.

② On April 14, 2011, when the Plaintiff first remitted the rent of KRW 550,00 to the Defendant, it was followed on March 31, 2011 when the Defendant paid the said rent of KRW 380,000 to the Plaintiff. As such, it is difficult to view the said KRW 380,000 as money related to the rent.

D. Sub-determination

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the contract of this case and the contract of this case are null and void as a false conspiracy is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the probative value of the disposal document and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal

2. As to the grounds of appeal on loans

A. The judgment of the court below

(1) Based on the evidence adopted by the lower court, (1) the Plaintiff was granted a loan of KRW 11,631,172 on March 8, 201 and then withdrawn KRW 100 million from his/her and C deposit account on several occasions between March 10, 2011 and March 14, 201; (2) on March 14, 201, the Defendant’s interest rate of KRW 100,000 on KRW 10,000 from his/her own account; (3) on March 14, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 100,000 to his/her own 20,000,000,000,000 KRW 10,000 to his/her own account; and (4) on March 14, 2014, the Defendant was 10,000,000 won to his/her own 20,000,00 won.

(2) In addition to the above facts, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “The Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to the Defendant on March 14, 201 as of March 14, 201 and received KRW 200 million as of the date of the lease, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan and interest thereon, because it is recognized that the Plaintiff received KRW 100,000 as of the date of the lease,” and that “the Plaintiff’s assertion is KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 from May 4, 201 to September of the same month.”

① On March 14, 2011, the Defendant delivered KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff as interest for one month among the above KRW 100,000,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the circumstance” in paragraph 2., and each circumstance described in this paragraph shall be indicated in the same manner as in paragraph 2.).

② The monetary transaction statement prepared by the Defendant before preparing the confirmation document of the instant case on March 14, 201, which was prepared by the Plaintiff at the time of settling the details of D and the existing monetary transaction based on the deposit account of both parties, etc. is not stated in KRW 100 million, which was paid in cash to the Defendant.

On March 14, 2011, the Plaintiff consistently asserted that KRW 100 million was lent to the Defendant at an interest rate of 2% per month from the first instance court to the lower court, and that the details of withdrawal prior to the date alleged by the Plaintiff to be lent are consistent with this, and that H’s statement that the Plaintiff was granted a custody of KRW 100 million on the same day from D and the Defendant is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion.

4) Although the defendant alleged that he borrowed KRW 100 million from D, it is extremely exceptional that he borrowed KRW 100 million in cash in light of the financial transaction relationship before D, and the defendant also borrowed KRW 100 million in cash in light of the financial transaction relationship before D. The defendant's assertion is not reliable since he did not receive the above large amount of money prior to the time of interrogation of the fraudulent case that the plaintiff filed a complaint in the course of interrogation of the suspect.

⑤ Although the Plaintiff had lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant 2% interest per month, it did not have received interest other than the first month interest of KRW 2 million, and there is no other evidence to deem that the Plaintiff urged the payment of the interest. However, the Plaintiff made a loan to another person by dividing the reasons by KRW 100 million and KRW 40 million, KRW 40 million, and KRW 20 million. The Plaintiff’s claim is persuasive in view of the Plaintiff’s focus on the Defendant at the time of this case’s sales contract, etc. with the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim is persuasive.

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, such fact-finding and determination by the court below are hard to accept in the following respects.

(1) The burden of proof as to whether a lending contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is asserted against the Plaintiff. In this case, there is no objective evidence, such as a disposal document, direct financial data, etc., that the party to the lending contract is the Plaintiff, and there is only D’s testimony as direct evidence corresponding thereto.

On the other hand, the defendant borrowed the above money from D other than the plaintiff, and the money was repaid on or around May 201, 201, and submitted financial transaction details consistent with the assertion of the repayment.

In contrast to D and the Defendant’s relationship where money was traded several times, the Plaintiff was not well aware of the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s lending of 100 million won or more without the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the maturity of payment and the receipt of a loan certificate, etc. is very exceptional in light of the empirical rule. In order to recognize the lending relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant due to D’s testimony, etc., there is a need for sufficient proof on the part of the Plaintiff.

(2) It is recognized that the foregoing statement of the court below ①, ③ the health account for the circumstances, the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion is confirmed, and H received shopping bags containing KRW 100 million in cash from the Defendant and stored them, and delivered them to the Defendant.

The lower court acknowledged that the Defendant paid interest of KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on March 14, 2011, as seen earlier, and determined that the lessee was not D but D, and recognized the interest of KRW 2% per month.

However, it is difficult to view that D’s statement is sufficiently reliable as it is followed with respect to the payment of advance interest of KRW 2 million, and it is also difficult to view D’s statement as it later. Moreover, the Defendant’s payment of the amount received as shopping bags on March 14, 2011 is KRW 100 million, and the amount delivered to H without being included in the shopping bags to H is KRW 100,000,000, not KRW 98,000,000,000,000 that H received from the Defendant, even though the amount was deducted as the prior interest, is not easily explained. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “a loan to the Defendant is KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won is not easily accepted.”

(3) The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that “The amount of KRW 100 million granted to the Defendant on March 14, 201, based on the foregoing statement of the lower judgment, ②, and the circumstances, based on the Plaintiff’s lending of the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and the money that the Defendant received from the Defendant through the bank account from May 4, 201 to May 9, 201, is a separate amount unrelated to the said KRW 100 million,” and that “the said KRW 100 million was repaid immediately after the loan from D.”

Rather, the evidence reveals that ① the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 100 million to D’s bank account three times from May 4, 201 to May 9 of the same month; ② the Defendant and D prepared the confirmation document of the instant case as seen earlier; ③ the Defendant, before preparing the confirmation document of the instant case, prepared a statement of accounts between D and D based on their deposit accounts, etc. on March 14, 2011, and the said statement of accounts was not written by the Defendant from May 4, 201 to May 4, 2011. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have received KRW 100 million from May 4, 2011 to September 9, 201.

On this issue, D stated that D’s above KRW 100 million, which the Defendant remitted to oneself around May 201, is the money borrowed from the Defendant’s form through the Defendant through the Defendant, offseted by the amount of KRW 30 million that D previously lent to the Defendant on April 5, 201, and that it repaid KRW 10 million on June 27, 201, and repaid the total amount of KRW 60 million on September 5, 2012, but in light of the following circumstances known by evidence, it is difficult to believe that D’s statements are made.

① Even though D had a claim against the Defendant around May 4, 2011, it is very exceptional in light of the empirical rule to borrow money from the Defendant without having paid it.

② If the Defendant transferred money to D around May 201, 201, the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 was entered in the said monetary transaction statement, or was omitted when the statement was made to D. However, the said statement of transactions asserted that D repaid to the Defendant was recorded in the said monetary transaction statement, and as a result of settlement based on such details of transactions, D agreed that D has a claim of KRW 250,00,000 to the Defendant. D in this case, the Defendant asserted that the amount of KRW 100,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

(4) The court below held that the plaintiff did not urge the payment of interest even though the plaintiff did not receive interest from the defendant as stated in the above judgment below (5).

However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was paid interest of KRW 2 million per month from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff did not urge the Defendant to pay such interest for a period exceeding two years prior to the instant lawsuit, and rather, continued to pay KRW 550,000 to the Defendant a monthly rent under the instant lease agreement. Although the Plaintiff was paid a monthly amount of KRW 2 million from the other party, it is equivalent to the empirical rule to continue to pay the other party a separate obligation of KRW 550,00 without any objection.

(5) In addition, in light of the conversation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which is recognized by the recording of the Plaintiff’s transcript (No. 38), the Defendant explains in detail the circumstances at the time when the Plaintiff would receive KRW 100 million from D and the content of the repayment of KRW 100 million to D, as well as that at the time of receiving KRW 100 million from D.

However, if the above KRW 100 million was the same as the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff lent the above KRW 100 million to the defendant in that place, the defendant seems to have no reason to explain the conversation with D to the plaintiff.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize that there was a lending contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of delivery from D of the above KRW 100 million to the Defendant in terms of the fact that the Plaintiff was different from the situation at the time of lending the Defendant’s explanation and did not make any special rebuttal.

In light of the above circumstances, there is sufficient room to view that the Defendant received KRW 100 million from non-Plaintiff D and returned it to D, and it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that “the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff as 2% interest per month.” Accordingly, the lower court erred in the misapprehension of logical and empirical rules, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant’s ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee