(a) The existence of a dispositive document in respect of which the formation is deemed true must be recognized unless there is a clear and acceptable reason to deny its content;

(See Supreme Court Decision 80Da442 delivered on June 9, 1981, referring to Supreme Court Decision 80Da442 delivered on June 9).

In full view of the purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant prepared an agreement on August 30, 2016, stating that "C (the defendant's children) borrowed KRW 120 million from the plaintiff on March 20, 2012, and shall pay KRW 1.5 million interest each month by August 29, 2016, in violation of the above agreement, upon consultation with the plaintiff, and at the same time, pay the total amount of this loan to the plaintiff as a lump sum payment, and at the same time, all interest obligations will be extinguished, and the said money shall be sold and subrogated at the same time with the sale of the building located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "the agreement in this case"). The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the above real estate on November 23, 2017 in accordance with the consultation on the public land acquired on November 23, 2017.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 35 million won with the annual interest rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from December 8, 2017 to November 30, 2018, which is the day following the transfer date of ownership of the pertinent real estate, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion of revocation by deception or mistake repeatedly borrows money from the Plaintiff over several times in the past, and the Defendant did not repay money to the Plaintiff. On March 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff was able to recover and pay money to the Plaintiff instead of the Defendant.

Accordingly, on August 2015, the plaintiff, who was found to be the plaintiff on August 1, 2015 and the defendant had to pay the principal to C.