A. From May 31, 2017 to September 13, 2017, the Plaintiff lent KRW 49 million to Defendant B, and received reimbursement of KRW 9 million among them.

B. On September 7, 2018, Defendant C, the mother of Defendant B, expressed his intent to jointly and severally pay the above loan obligation to Defendant B to the Plaintiff, and was paid by disposing of the land D and E, a real estate in Defendant C’s name.

C. The above real estate in the name of the defendant C is not yet disposed of.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Defendant C expressed his/her intent to bear an obligation against the Plaintiff on the condition that the said real estate was disposed of, and the said real estate was not disposed of, so he/she cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

B. In the case of a juristic act to which an additional officer attached, if there is considerable reason to view that if the facts indicated in the additional officer do not occur, it should be viewed as a condition, and if it is reasonable to view that the obligations should be performed even when the facts indicated have occurred and the counterclaim has not occurred, it shall be deemed that the existence of the indicated facts has become final and conclusive.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26128, Aug. 22, 2013). In cases where certain facts are attached to the repayment of an obligation, barring any special circumstance, the period for performance should be deemed to have come due not only when the occurrence of a fact occurred, but also when the occurrence of a fact becomes impossible.

Furthermore, the realization of facts prescribed by subordinate officers is determined by the sex or effort of a person who mainly performs his/her obligations, and even if the creditor is not able to affect the realization of facts, it has not been confirmed that the occurrence of facts is impossible as well as the time of occurrence of facts.