The validity of confession made by a clan representative in legal proceedings without following the resolution, etc. of the general meeting of clan members.

In a case where the plaintiff and the defendant among the plaintiff and the defendant among the plaintiff and the defendant, instead of withdrawing the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the defendant among the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant among the defendant was led to an agreement to transfer the ownership of the real estate in dispute to the plaintiff, and the court cannot find any other fact inconsistent with the facts that the plaintiff and the defendant among the plaintiff and the defendant were bound by the confession of the defendant and that such agreement was valid. Thus, the court cannot determine that the above agreement has no effect on the defendant among the defendant on the ground that there is no evidence to support that there was no agreement between the plaintiff and the representative between the plaintiff and the defendant

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Lee Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Judgment of the court below]

Chuncheon District Court Decision 88Na2827,2834 delivered on March 23, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

the case is remanded to the Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held that on March 25, 1986, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant's clan on March 1, 1986, on the part 61,154 square meters in the decision of the court below concerning the part 61,154 square meters in the decision of the court below among the 5 forest land 113,454 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the forest of this case") in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Gangwon-do, which was the first branch of the Chuncheon District Court of 86Ga25, that the plaintiff's disposition of the above clan was effective for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration which was made in the name of the defendant's name, and the plaintiff's disposition of the defendant clan was cancelled on March 1, 1979, instead of returning the ownership of the above part of the forest of this case to the defendant clan, the plaintiff's claim that the above part of the defendant clan was valid for the withdrawal of the above part of the plaintiff's property belonging to the defendant clan.

2. However, if the parties make a confession to their own disadvantage consistent with the allegations of the other party, that is, the court may not admit facts different from the purport of confession based on evidence. According to the records, in lieu of withdrawal of the above lawsuit against the defendant among the defendant's clan, the defendant's order of return of the previous part of the forest land of this case to the plaintiffs is recognized, and the statement in the pleading (refer to the written reply of December 22, 1987 and the legal reasoning as of January 27, 1989, and each of the above written statements as to the plaintiffs and the defendant's clan stated that the above agreement was valid, and it is not clear that the agreement between the defendant and the defendant among the defendant's clan 2 is valid, but it is not clear that the remaining part of the plaintiff's statement is valid, and it is not clear that there was an error of law as to the plaintiff's remaining portion of the confession as to the plaintiff's forest land of this case, since it is not clear that the plaintiff's remaining copy of the written statement of this case's ruling of this case 60 meters.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)