Among them, the part concerning the claim for reimbursement by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

Of the Defendant’s claim, the lower court asserted that the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) purchased lux language on June 15, 2006 and the Defendant paid 34.8 million won on June 16, 2006 on behalf of the Plaintiff, and accepted the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was based on the premise that the Defendant’s payment on behalf of the Plaintiff was a confession, on the other hand, on the ground that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant paid lux, which the Plaintiff had to pay on behalf of the Plaintiff.

However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable.

The judicial confession refers to the statement of facts that correspond to the allegations of the other party and that are disadvantageous to himself at the preparatory date for pleading or preparatory date for pleading. According to the records, the plaintiff settled the amount of the plaintiff's demand for reimbursement on behalf of the other party at the first instance court and the lower court's pleading or preparatory date for pleading, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant paid the amount of the plaintiff's demand for reimbursement on behalf of the other party in lieu of "not recognized that the plaintiff would have jointly purchased the plaintiff and the defendant," but rather, consistently, the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 13 million to G on June 7, 2006 and KRW 15 million to G on June 14, 2006 at the request of the defendant, and the defendant settled the amount of the plaintiff's demand for reimbursement on behalf of the other party (see, e.g., the legal brief and the preparatory date for pleading on June 14, 2006, referring to the plaintiff's statement on June 21, 2012).