[2] Cases where the withdrawal of confession is allowed, and the method of revocation

[2] In a case where the confession is proved by the evidence that the confession is not in conformity with the truth, and the confession is deemed to be caused by mistake due to the purport of the pleading, the court shall allow the revocation of the confession, and the revocation of the confession is not necessarily required to be explicitly stated, but can be impliedly made by asserting the facts contrary to the previous confession.

In light of the fact that a junior administrative officer, etc. enters the gist of the pleading, but the matters concerning confession shall be clearly stated in the protocol, and the presiding judge shall affix his/her name and seal to the protocol so that interested parties may file an objection and file an objection (Articles 143 subparag. 1 and 146 of the Civil Procedure Act). In the event the contents of the pleading are entered in the protocol, it shall have a strong probative value as to the authenticity of the contents thereof, barring any special circumstances.

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance that the plaintiffs led to confession on the date of the eighth hearing of the court of first instance as to the fact that the deceased non-party 1's inherited property is only the real estate of this case and there is no other active and passive property, is justifiable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence selection as

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the revocation of confession

In a case where a confession is proven to be inconsistent with the truth, and the confession is recognized to be caused by mistake in accordance with the whole purport of the pleading, the court shall allow revocation of the confession, and the revocation of the confession in court is not necessarily required to be explicitly stated, but can be impliedly made by asserting the facts contrary to the previous confession (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da31976, Feb. 23, 1996).

However, in light of the records, it is reasonable that the court below decided that the confession of the deceased non-party 1 was against the truth, but it cannot be deemed that the confession was made due to mistake, and that the confession was made in the 8th day of the court of first instance, and that the confession was made in the 8th day of the court of first instance, and that the confession was made in the 8th day of the court of first instance, while the confession was stated in the 8th day of the court of first instance, and that the confession was not explicitly asserted that it would be against the truth and due to mistake until the closing of argument in the court of first instance, and that the confession was made in the 19th day of the court of first instance. Thus, in order to clarify the issues in the lawsuit by the presiding judge's direction, the court below did not have any more active and negative properties than the real estate in this case, and therefore, it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of confession, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to it is not accepted (In addition, the record that even if the amount of the deceased's property cannot be accepted).

3. As to mistake of facts about inherited property

In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts and determination that the co-ownership share of the deceased in the name of the wife of the deceased on the real estate listed in the attached Nos. 1 through 3 of the judgment of the court below is just and correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence by violating the rules of evidence.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)