(a) Revocation of confession and burden of proof;

(b) Examples inconsistent with the main text of a judgment ordering an explanation of real estate property and the explanation of the reasons therefor.

When a confession is revoked, it should be proved that the confession goes against the truth and that the confession was made by mistake, and that the confession was made by mistake, and the burden of proof to prove it is the person who asserts the revocation of confession.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Red Sheet

Seoul Special Metropolitan City and four others

Kim Young-young et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na508 delivered on November 27, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 62Na508 delivered on November 27, 1962

The case shall be reversed among the original judgment against each of the defendant Han-il, Kim Hong, Kim Hong-man, and Soul ships, and the case shall be remanded to Seoul High Court.

The appeal by the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is dismissed.

Expenses incurred in relation to participation in an appeal by the defendant in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be borne by the supplementary intervenors, and the remainder shall be borne by the same defendant in whole.

As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Han-il, Kim Hong-ok, Kim Hong-man, and the grounds of appeal by the supplementary intervenor Kim Jong-young and Park Jong-soo's representative Kim Jong-man, as to the first ground of appeal by Defendant Han-il, Kim Hong-man,

According to the statement of July 13, 1961 in the court of first instance, the plaintiff purchased real estate from the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City (the first instance court) by means of the above legal brief, and the purchaser of this real estate recognized the fact that he sold it to the defendant (the first instance court) Park Jong-chul, and concluded the pleading which can be recognized as effective as the confession, but the plaintiff's agent again stated in the above legal statement of August 17 of the same year that the purchase of this real estate would not violate the legal principles as to the confessions of the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's reasoning that the confessions of this case would not have any effect on the withdrawal of the plaintiff's pleading because the plaintiff's confessions of this case's legal reasoning is not sufficient to recognize the validity of the confessions of the first instance court's original judgment's statement that the plaintiff's agent sold this real estate to the above 11 et al., and therefore, the plaintiff's subagent's reply to the court's subsequent confessions of the plaintiff's defense will not necessarily be acceptable.

As to the ground of appeal No. 4 of the ground of appeal by Defendant Han-il, Kim Hong-man, and the representative Kim Jong-tae, who was the representative of the Lee Young-soo in the middle of the Lee Young-ok and the supplementary intervenor Kim Young-ok in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the gist of the appeal is that the plaintiff did not have obtained ownership registration of the real estate, and therefore, the judgment of the court below was unlawful on the premise that the plaintiff did not have acquired ownership of the real estate, and that the judgment of the court below ordered the plaintiff to order the above defendants to promptly express the real estate. According to the reasoning explanation, if the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate in this case, the order of the court below ordered the above defendants to clarify the real estate in the future on the premise that the plaintiff will acquire ownership at that time, and there was an error of law in the misapprehension of the order and reasoning explanation in the decision of the court below ordering the future name on the premise that the plaintiff will acquire ownership of the real estate in this case, and the appeal will not be reversed.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 as to the supplementary intervenor, Kim Young-gu, and Lee Jin-kin's representative, and the grounds of appeal No. 2 and 3 as to

The court below's decision or evidence (the whole purport of argument, including the statement in the original trial) does not recognize the fact that the purchaser of the real estate in question is Park Jong-chul, and there is no illegality in the process of its recognition. It shall not be interpreted as a trial decision which rejected the above part of the testimony of Kim Jong-chul's testimony, as well as the part of the testimony of Kim Jong-chul's testimony, which is contrary to the original judgment. As described below, all of the arguments except for the appeal of Kim Jong-tae, which is the reason for reversal, are eventually in the final formation of the contract and the conclusion of the contract, or there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the determination of evidence and the issuance of the registration procedure letter to the plaintiff, because it is nothing more than 4 of the judgment below's reasoning that the plaintiff did not have the authority to explain the above contents of the contract, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the conclusion of the contract and the issuance of the registration procedure letter to the plaintiff, which is the only evidence to prove that the plaintiff did not exercise the right to appeal.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)