Method of cancelling a confession

The revocation of a confession is not necessarily required to be explicitly stated, but can be implied by proving the facts contrary to the previous confession.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 78Da246 delivered on February 7, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney is examined.

The records of this case are as follows: the withdrawal of a false confession does not necessarily have to be explicitly stated, but it can be allowed to be impliedly by proving facts contrary to the previous confessions, and the defendant stated in the second day of May 22, 1978 that the building and tent of this case are owned by the defendant; thus, it is like the theory of lawsuit that the defendant made a confession as to the plaintiff's assertion that they are owned by the defendant; however, the defendant, in the court below's fifth day of December 6, 1978, the building and tent of this case were not owned by the defendant, and the building and tent of this case were not owned by the defendant, nor were they used as the private house and the private house of the ○○○○○○○○○ Foundation's dividends as the non-party's new receipts (which is the non-party's 1 or the non-party's new receipts). Thus, the defendant's assertion that the above facts are not owned by the defendant's 1 or the non-party's new receipts (the non-party 1 or the non-party's new receipts).

This issue is groundless.

We examine the second ground for appeal.

Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the application for the resumption of pleadings was in conflict with the principle of party representation and the fairness of the hearing, since the granting of the application for the resumption of pleadings by the parties falls under the discretion of the court, it cannot be readily concluded that the application for the resumption of pleadings was rejected, and it cannot be said that there was a brut that the lower court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations like the theory of lawsuit.

This paper is groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)