1. The Defendant’s KRW 36,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 28, 2018 to January 25, 2019.

1. On December 16, 2006, C, the husband of the Defendant’s basic facts, signed in the name of the Defendant in the name of the Defendant, and written a payment note to the effect that, in disposing of the land in the wife population D (hereinafter “instant land”) at the time when the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. were inherited property, the Plaintiff and the Defendant would pay KRW 36 million (hereinafter “instant payment note”).

[Judgment of the court below]

2. The plaintiff asserts that C is liable to pay 36 million won and delay damages in accordance with the agreement, since C prepared a memorandum of payment on behalf of or on behalf of the defendant who is the wife and disposed of the land indicated therein.

On the contrary, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not make a promise as specified in the letter of payment in this case between the plaintiff and C, and that it did not delegate C the right to prepare the letter of payment.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the family number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness E's testimony, part of witness Eul's testimony (excluding the part not trusted in front) and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff and the defendant reached a mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to pay 36 million won to the plaintiff when disposing of the above land as a result of the discussion by the plaintiff and the defendant's mother's mother's mother's mother's mother's death on or around June 2006, and the father's mother became co-inheritors along with G. As a result of division consultation about the wife population D and H's land as inherited property, the plaintiff and the defendant calculated that the defendant's property was more inherited, and there was a dispute that the plaintiff and his wife E, the defendant and her husband were more and more inherited. Accordingly, it is recognized that C prepared a letter of payment in the name of the defendant in this case to the plaintiff, and it is not contrary to the witness's testimony.

B. Thus, the husband C of the defendant acting on behalf of the defendant and the plaintiff in this case.