1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, and presented the plaintiff's assertion that there was an agreement between C and the defendant to pay only the principal of the loan of this case, i.e., the agreement to pay the principal of the loan of this case. According to the evidence No. 21, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that the defendant appeared as a witness of the criminal trial of this case and asked the defendant to "I would like to agree to pay only the principal without interest to the defendant," "I would like to pay 30 million won and 40 million won each with interest," but it appears that C and the defendant would have agreed to pay only the principal on the condition that C shall pay 30 million won or more each month, according to the above defendant's reply, there is no evidence to prove that C fulfilled the above condition after C.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The court shall not determine on the basis of facts not asserted by the parties with respect to the major facts falling under the legal requirements pursuant to the principle of pleading.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a condition attached to a certain juristic act, and by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a condition attached to a certain juristic act, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da35766, Nov. 24, 2006). However, according to the records, the records are examined.