beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. When the confession has been made without the consent of the other party with respect to the confession within the court, the confession may be revoked in the case where the confession proves that the confession does not fit the truth and that the confession was due to an error;
At this time, the fact that the truth does not fit can be proved by direct evidence, but it is possible to prove indirect facts that can confirm that the confession does not fit the truth.
In addition, if the confession is proved to be contrary to the truth and the confession is not presumed to have been caused by mistake, but if it is proved that the confession is not in conformity with the truth, the confession is caused by mistake according to the overall purport of the pleading.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da23013 Decided September 8, 200, and Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13533 Decided June 11, 2004, etc.). 2. On September 20, 2010, the lower court confirmed the fact that the Plaintiffs and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with each of the instant forest owned by the Plaintiffs on September 30, 2010 and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract with each of the instant forest to sell it to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) on September 30, 2010, as the fact that there is no dispute between the parties.
Then, the lower court, with respect to the Defendant’s assertion that the confession in the first instance court on the fact of concluding the instant sales contract, recognized that the revocation of the said confession has no effect on the grounds that the said confession is contrary to the truth and is difficult to be deemed to be due to mistake, in full view of the circumstances such as the following: (a) the instant sales contract is stipulated as the parties to the instant contract; (b) the sales price was newly determined as KRW 360 million, not as the purchase price between I and the Defendant; and (c) the down payment and the balance amount, and the due date was determined differently from the sales contract between I and the Defendant.