The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The court below rejected the defendant's defense of cancellation of agreement. Eul evidence Nos. 2.3 (each receipt), Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, Eul evidence Nos. 5 (a pledge), and Eul evidence Nos. 5 (a pledge) (in particular, it shall be presumed that Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4-1, and that the defendant's name was first used from July 1965 to the non-party No. 2), and the defendant's testimony No. 3, 6, 7, and 8 were non-party No. 5, the non-party No. 6, the non-party No. 7, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 4, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 9, the non-party No. 1, the non-party No. 9's. 1, the evidence No. 9.

However, evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 4-1 and 5 of evidence Nos. 1 to 3 and 4-1 and 5 of each plaintiff's signature and seal are presumed to correspond to the truth, each of the contents are presumed to be consistent with the truth, and if it is not trusted, there must be a reasonable explanation. The court below decided that the court below's decision is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of the value of evidence of the disposition document (if each of the above documentary evidence is not acknowledged, it is necessary to explain it, if the authenticity of each documentary evidence is not recognized, the admissibility of evidence of each of the above documentary evidence is recognized, and it is reasonable in view of the contents of the judgment of the court below. Accordingly, the appeal on the points of the above documentary evidence is dismissed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman