The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. With respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and incomplete hearing, this part of the ground of appeal is the purport of disputing the judgment of the court below and the fact-finding based thereon.

The evaluation of evidence, which is a premise of fact finding and its premise, is within the discretionary power of a fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

In examining the record, it does not seem that the court below did not fully conduct all necessary deliberation for the determination of evidence and fact-finding, but did not err by exceeding the bounds of reasonable free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

2. (1) On the allegation of omission in judgment, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant, and accepted the defendant's repayment and the defense of extinctive prescription as follows, and eventually, accepted part of the defendant's objection to the deposit, and the defendant bears the principal and interest of KRW 112,07,289 as of the date of filing of the lawsuit in this case, and held that the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won out of the loan principal and interest of this case and damages for delay from the day after the delivery date of the copy

(2) However, according to the records, the defendant's attorney prepared a promissory note with a face value of 24 million won against the plaintiff on July 2, 2007 through a preparatory document dated November 29, 2013, which was stated on the date of the first pleading of the court below, to the effect that "the defendant, on July 2, 2007, prepared a promissory note with a face value of 24 million won against the plaintiff on July 14, 2007, and deposited the plaintiff as a deposit for the purpose of preventing compulsory execution, and accordingly, the above debt under the notarial deed was extinguished on the ground that the above debt under the notarial deed was fully repaid." According to the evidence No. 9-1 (Judgment) that the defendant was declared not to enforce compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed, the defendant as a depositee.