beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional judgments, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination
A. On June 20, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 30,000,00 from the Plaintiff as of August 20, 2014, the due date for payment was determined and borrowed KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff on April 17, 2015, and the fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,00,000 from the Plaintiff on June 17, 2015, the Defendant made a judicial confession in the first instance court. However, the partial loan was not borrowed from the Plaintiff, which was not borrowed from the Defendant’s husband, against the truth, and is contrary to the Defendant’s borrowing, and the Defendant stated in the first instance trial without knowing the content of the exclusion, and thus, the confession in the above part is contrary to the truth and is thus revoked due to mistake.
B. A confession during a trial is a statement of facts unfavorable to himself/herself, consistent with the allegations by the other party on the date for pleading or at the date for preparatory pleading, and once a confession during a trial is established, the court is bound by this unless it has been lawfully revoked. Thus, the court cannot admit the facts contrary to the facts established as to the facts without dispute between the parties by evidence.
A party who revokes a confession shall not be presumed to have been a confession due to mistake, in addition to the fact that the confession is contrary to the truth, and shall not be presumed to have been a confession due to mistake, with the fact that the confession has been proven contrary to the truth
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84288, 84295, Feb. 11, 2010). With respect to the instant case, the health care unit and the Plaintiff stated the above and the loan to the Defendant in the written application for the instant payment order, and the Defendant written a written objection against the payment order on August 11, 2017 on the ground that the amount claimed by the Plaintiff does not coincide with the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.