The appeal concerning the Appointor H shall be dismissed.

Of the part against the plaintiff (appointed party) of the lower judgment, it is against Defendant E.

1. The appeal on the determination of the Appointed H is seeking revocation or alteration of the judgment unfavorable to himself/herself, and the appeal on the judgment in full winning the entire winning the judgment is not allowed as there is no subject or interest to file an appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da61378, Jun. 14, 2002). According to the record, the first instance court granted the Appointed’s claim for the performance of the assignment of assignment notice to H H F and G (the first instance court and the Defendants C) and the lower court dismissed all of the appeals by F and G.

The appeal with respect to the Appointer H is unlawful as it does not have any object or interest to file an appeal against the judgment of winning the entire case.

2. The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed) as to the Plaintiff’s appeal (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

Whether the confessions made by Defendant E with respect to the establishment of the authenticity of the evidence No. 4 (a written agreement, hereinafter “instant agreement”) has been lawfully revoked (a) The confessions in court may revoke the facts that the confessions made by the party who made the confessions go against the truth and that the confessions are due to mistake, unless the other party gives his consent, unless the confessions are given.

Although confessions as to the establishment of the authenticity of documentary evidence are related to the fact of assistance, unlike the cancellation of confessions as to other indirect facts, it is necessary to treat the confessions as identical to the cancellation of confessions as to the principal facts, so the parties who have led to the confessions cannot freely withdraw the confessions.

(2) The lower court determined as follows. (3) (2) The lower court determined as follows. (3)

As to the instant agreement, Defendant E recognized the authenticity at the third day of pleading of the first instance trial, such as the entry in the Book of Witness on August 12, 2011 by the Department of Witness on August 12, 201.

However, A.