[대여금등][공2000.11.1.(117),2097]
In the case of revocation of a confession within a trial, whether it may be possible by means of an indirect fact proving the truth that a confession violates the truth (affirmative), and whether a confession may be recognized by the prior purport of oral argument (affirmative), and whether a confession may be recognized by the prior purport of oral argument (affirmative with qualification)
In a case where there is no consent of the other party to a confession in the court, the confession may be revoked if the confession is proved to be inconsistent with the truth and that the confession is due to mistake. The fact that the confession is inconsistent with the truth may be proved by direct evidence, but if there is any proof that the confession is inconsistent with the truth, it may be possible by indirect evidence to confirm that the confession is inconsistent with the truth, and if there is any proof that the confession is contrary to the truth, and if it is proved that the confession is not contrary to the truth, the confession is caused by mistake in accordance with the preceding purport of the oral argument, it can be recognized that the confession is caused by mistake.
Articles 187 and 261 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 4294Da606 Decided January 18, 1962 (Gong10-1, 37) Supreme Court Decision 91Da15591, 15607 Decided August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 2426) Supreme Court Decision 97Da30646 Decided November 11, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3764)
Sungwon Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun Law Office, Attorneys Cho Jae-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant (Law Firm Future, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 99Na42997 delivered on April 20, 2000
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to revocation of confession
In a case where there is no consent of the other party with regard to a confession in court, the confession may be revoked if the confession proves that the confession is not in conformity with the truth and that the confession is due to mistake. The fact that the confession is inconsistent with the truth may be proved by direct evidence, but it may be possible by indirect evidence to confirm that the confession is inconsistent with the truth. In addition, in a case where there is a proof that the confession is contrary to the truth, and it is not presumed that the confession is due to mistake, but it is proved that the confession is due to mistake, the confession is due to the whole purport of the pleading (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da15591, 15607, Aug. 27, 1991; 97Da30646, Nov. 11, 197).
In full view of the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below held that the confession of the defendant was lawfully revoked on the ground that the defendant's confession against the truth and the defendant's confession against the fact that the defendant borrowed the loan of this case can be recognized as due to mistake in the whole purport of oral argument, although it seems that the defendant's confession was somewhat insufficient, considering the above legal principles and the contents of the confession are proved to the purport that the defendant's non-legal existence of a loan was actively proven unlike the defendant's previous confession, according to the contents of the confession of this case, or the circumstances revealed before and after the confession of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant actually borrowed the loan of this case. Thus, the court below's determination that the confession of this case was made due to mistake is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof and the degree of proof of value of the confession of this case.
2. As to the assertion of mistake of fact
Except the evidence rejected, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts leading to the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims in this case. In light of the records, the court below's determination of evidence and determination of the court below is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)