First, the first ground of the judgment below is examined as to the first ground of appeal. On the contrary, the court below's reasoning is examined as follows: "c. the defendant shall pay a sum of 207,900 refunds as shown in the first to fourth installment, as shown in the attached Form No. 1 of the attached Form No. 1 (as attached at the end of the judgment of the court below) after having the plaintiff receive 1,600,000 refunds from the next month to the next month after having the plaintiff receive 1,000 dollars from the second to the next month after having the plaintiff receive 20,160,000 dollars from the second part of the attached Form No. 1 (the end of the judgment of the court of original judgment) and then having the plaintiff make 1,00,000 dollars from the next month to 60,000 dollars, and the remaining amount shall be paid to the plaintiff in lieu of the plaintiff's direct refund from the point of view of the court below."

However, according to the records, it is evident that the defendant's agent argues that the defendant's agent was not the plaintiff's father but the other money of 1 million won in this case, which he had left in the middle, at the date of pleading 14:00 on May 30, 1962.

Therefore, the court below's main facts alleged by the defendant are not based on evidence but based on the court below's reasoning, and it is clear that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on finding facts. The appeal in this case is well-grounded in this respect. Therefore, the court below's decision is reversed in accordance with Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act before the amendment, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the court below.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)