The case holding that since the defendant's statement to the purport that the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant was caused by the plaintiff's title trust among evidentiary documents cannot be deemed as an expression of intent, since it cannot be deemed as the part of the defendant's statement that it was caused by the plaintiff's title trust, the defendant's assertion that it was caused by duress or as a false statement

The case holding that since the defendant's statement to the effect that the transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant was caused by the plaintiff's title trust among evidential documents is only a statement of fact, and cannot be seen as an expression of intention, the defendant's statement cannot be cancelled or null and void as a statement that is not a true one, the purport of such assertion is that the statement was made by duress, and thus, it is to the purport that the probative value is disputed by the fact that it is false statement.

Articles 107(1) and 110(1) of the Civil Act; Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 72Da963 delivered on March 13, 1973

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff-Appellee Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant-Appellant (Attorney Cho Yong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na9345 delivered on November 20, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the real estate in this case was the clan possession of the plaintiff clan, which was originally established with the clan of the plaintiff clan members, on October 1, 1916, but the plaintiff clan entrusted the name of the plaintiff clan non-party 1 to the deceased non-party 1 at the time of forest circumstances, but completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the trust trust with the above non-party 1 and the non-party 6, who are the clan members, and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the trust. On June 2, 1981, the court below held that the non-party 2 who is the representative of the plaintiff clan and the non-party 6, who is the title trustee of the real estate in this case, had a duty to establish the ownership transfer of the real estate in this case to the defendant's sole name on January 16, 199, and that the defendant received the above decision from the plaintiff clan's title truster's title trust due to the agreement to implement the registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate in this case's name.

However, the part of the defendant's statement to the effect that the registration of transfer of ownership made in the name of the defendant for the real estate of this case is made through the title trust of the plaintiff clan. Thus, since this part of the defendant's statement cannot be deemed to be a statement of fact or an expression of intent, it cannot be deemed to be null and void as a statement made by coercion. The defendant's purport of such assertion is that the statement was made by coercion, and it is different from the fact, and the probative value of the statement is disputed. Thus, the court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion by adopting the statement No. 5 as evidence.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)