beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The confession during a trial is a statement made by the parties on the date for pleading or at the date for preparatory pleading, which is a statement of facts unfavorable to himself/herself, consistent with the allegations of the other parties. As such, as to whether the confession is consistent, the entire purport of pleading shall be determined by exercising
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da26424, Jun. 28, 2007; 201Du6431, Sept. 4, 2014). Meanwhile, in a case where the confession in a trial is proved by mistake that the confession does not fit the truth and that the confession was due to mistake, if the other party did not consent to the confession in a trial, the confession may be revoked.
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 be due to mistake, but if it is proved that the confession is not in conformity with the truth, the confession may be recognized to be due to mistake according to the overall purport of the pleading.
(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the construction work of this case (hereinafter “the contract of this case”) on June 11, 2004.2. The lower court acknowledged the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff concluded a contract for the construction work of this case with the Defendant on January 1, 2002 (hereinafter “instant construction work”); and (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a written estimate for the construction work of this case at KRW 80,000,000, and submitted a written estimate for the construction work of this case at KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to settle the construction work later on the basis of KRW 80,000,000; and (d) further, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a written contract for the construction work of this case (hereinafter “the contract of this case”).