Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with F, a counseling employee of the Defendant, with the explanation that the remainder may be paid upon a secured loan under the Plaintiff’s name. However, the Plaintiff could not pay the remainder due to the Plaintiff’s lending limit. The Plaintiff requested the return of the amount paid to the Defendant after cancelling the instant sales contract based on Article 109 of the Civil Act.

On the other hand, the defendant argues that the requirements for the exercise of the right of revocation on the ground of mistake of juristic act are not satisfied.

The summary court of the procedure has been leading to the following judgments as to the issues of the case and whether the right to revoke under Article 109 of the Civil Code is established, by examining the evidence submitted by the plaintiff in the course of two days of pleading.

(F) The key witness of the issue alleged by the Plaintiff cannot be examined for reasons of impossibility of being served. The only evidence supporting the Plaintiff’s argument on the issue is the same as the evidence No. 3-1, No. 2 (a transcript with F as the counselor on Oct. 1, 2018 and May 2019).

However, the recording recording of the above conversation is very short of the recording time's amount to 13 seconds and 9 seconds each.

As such, it is difficult to have sufficient persuasive power to lead the court's public decision by itself with the short recording on which the contents of the front and rear dialogue are omitted.

Even if F, it was expressed in the above recording record, the F gave a guidance.