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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In the case of an attached juristic act, if it is reasonable to view that the failure to perform the obligation would not have occurred unless the facts indicated in the associates have occurred, it should be viewed as a condition, and if it is reasonable to view that the performance of the obligation should be made even if not only when the indicated facts have occurred but also when the objection has become final and conclusive, it shall be deemed that the determination of the occurrence of the indicated facts has

In addition, if certain facts are attached to the repayment of the obligation already borne, it shall, unless there are special circumstances, be deferred and the time limit shall expire when the facts have occurred or are determined not to occur.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the legal act, and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal, contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da1142, Apr. 29, 1994; 201Da5134, Dec. 27, 2011). Moreover, the mitigation of exemption from liability or liability does not necessarily necessarily require an express declaration of intent, but it should be recognized in cases where it can be deemed as exemption from liability or liability by a creditor’s interpretation of a certain act or expression of intent. However, for such recognition, an obligee’s act or expression of intent is interpreted in accordance with the content of the pertinent legal relationship.