Whether a judgment may be rendered differently from the allegations of the parties in a case where there is a confession of right holder (affirmative)

In case where there is a confession of right holder, the court may make a judgment different from the allegations of the parties regarding the legal relationship subject to confession, based on the factual relations recognized in the litigation, unlike the confession on the factual issues.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Meu1992 Delivered on June 12, 1979

Kim Young-deok

(1) The defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2713 delivered on December 7, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal and supplementary grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal No. 1 and the grounds of supplementary appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the deceased non-party 1 was married to the deceased non-party 2 on October 1920, and was born to the deceased non-party 3 on March 7, 1922, and that the deceased non-party 3 was the only lineal descendant of the deceased non-party 1 at the time of the death of the deceased non-party 1 on March 29, 1926, and determined that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, who was born to the deceased non-party 1 as the natural father of the deceased non-party 1 at the same time as the birth of the deceased non-party 1, and they were born to the deceased non-party 3 on the basis of marriage, and determined that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, who were born between them, obtained the status of the deceased non-party 1 as the natural father of the deceased

According to the records, the plaintiff was born between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 until July 13, 1978 before the date of pleading in the court below, but his parent's report of marriage was made after the birth, so that he was a person born between the above two parties and his parent's report of marriage after his parent's report of marriage was made. However, the plaintiff's above assertion that the deceased non-party 3 was born before the parent's report of marriage was made to the non-party 3, which was only an expression of legal opinion that he was born before the parent's report of marriage, and it is nothing more than an expression of legal opinion that the plaintiff was born before the marriage was made to the non-party 3, who was legally recognized as a person, and it cannot be viewed as a person other than the deceased non-party 3 who was legally recognized as a person to be a person to be a person other than the marriage, and therefore, it is justified in the judgment below that it constitutes a confession in violation of the rules of evidence.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2-1 to No. 3:

All theories purport to criticize the judgment of the court below by citing evidence preparation and fact-finding which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is the fact-finding court. Even though the court below examined the process of evidence collection by the records, it cannot be said that there was an error against the rules of evidence such as erroneous determination of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 2-4

Although the possessor is presumed to possess the forest as his own intention, it is obvious that he has no intention to own it with the title to manage another person's property, in view of the nature of his title, and according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party's stopping salary does not have acquired an exchange of the forest of this case as stated in the reasoning of the judgment below. However, it is nothing more than that of the possession and management of the forest of this case with the management delegation by the non-party 4, etc., who is the relative of the deceased non-party 3, but it cannot be regarded as the possession with the nature of title, and even if the defendant occupied the forest of this case from 1962 to 1962 from the non-party's purchase of the forest of this case from the above stopping salary of this case, the defendant's claim for the prescriptive acquisition by prescription of the defendant is dismissed. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)