[1] The validity of confession in court

[2] Whether a confession is presumed to have been caused by mistake if it is proved that the withdrawal of confession goes against the truth (negative)

[1] 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 the said court unless it is lawfully revoked. Thus, the court cannot admit by evidence the facts established as to the facts without dispute between the parties.

[2] A party who revokes a confession shall not be presumed to have been led to a mistake, as well as the fact that the confession is against the truth, and shall not be presumed to have been led to a confession due to an error, on the ground that it has been proven contrary to the truth.

[1] Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu804 delivered on October 24, 1988 (Gong1988, 1460) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da22897 delivered on September 27, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2814) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13533 Delivered on June 11, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1163)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dongwon, Attorneys Choi Sung-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na807, 814 Decided September 10, 2009

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the credit payment claim among the part regarding the principal claim, is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

A confession in court 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 in court is established, unless it is lawfully revoked, the court is bound by this. Thus, the court cannot find any facts contrary to the facts alleged in dispute between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu804, Oct. 24, 1988).

In addition, the party who revokes a confession is not presumed to have been a confession due to mistake because the confession was proved to be due to mistake in addition to the fact that the confession was contrary to the truth, and it was proved to be contrary to the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da22897, Sept. 27, 1994; 2004Da13533, Jun. 11, 2004).

In this case, the plaintiff filed a claim for payment of KRW 57,063,50,394 of the unpaid credit amount and KRW 5,679,394 of the service cost, etc. on the ground that the plaintiff agreed to provide services, such as purchase of clothing and raw materials, packaging, and transportation agency in the Dongdaemun market, and to receive service cost equivalent to 2% or 3% of the purchase amount, and the clothing and raw materials purchased on credit, and the payment of the unpaid credit amount. The court below rejected the claim for KRW 5,679,394 of the service cost, etc. on the ground that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay the credit amount for clothing and raw materials.

However, in light of the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, the judgment of the court below on the credit payment claim by the clothes and raw materials cannot be accepted as it is.

According to the records, the defendant acknowledged that he agreed to pay credit payment to the plaintiff through a preparatory document (record 62 pages) dated June 4, 2008 as stated in the first instance court (record 62 pages) and asserted that the unpaid amount should be offset against damage liability arising from tort against the plaintiff on the premise that the plaintiff's assertion is identical to the plaintiff's assertion. The court below erred in its judgment (record 198 pages below) that the confession of the defendant on credit payment was established in the court below (record 198 pages below), on the premise that the plaintiff's assertion is correct, the defendant alleged that the confession is against the truth and the confession was revoked because it was caused by mistake (record 203 pages below the records).

Thus, as to the fact that the defendant agreed to pay the credit amount of his argument to the plaintiff, the confession shall be deemed to have been established by mutual agreement. Accordingly, in order for the defendant to revoke the confession, the confession shall be against the truth and due to mistake, as well as the burden of proof. However, even if examining the record, there is no sufficient data to recognize it.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on this part of this case on the ground that there is no evidence to conclude that the defendant agreed to pay the above credit amount to the plaintiff against the above confessions without explicitly determining the parties' assertion on confessions and revocations. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on confessions and revocations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

In light of the records, the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts are within the discretionary power of the fact-finding court unless they are against logical and empirical rules, and the court below's decision that there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff suffered damage due to the plaintiff's unlawful deterioration of the defendant's credit and infringement of business rights, as alleged in its reasoning, shall be justified. There is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff, the part against the plaintiff as to the credit payment claim among the part concerning the principal claim of the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)