[1] Cases where the withdrawal of confession is allowed, and whether confession can be recognized by the whole purport of pleading that the confession was due to mistake (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that confessions on the labor disability loss rate due to mistake in accordance with the whole purport of pleading

[1] In a case where there is no consent of the other party, a confession in court may be revoked only when the confession proves that the confession was not in conformity with the truth and that the confession was due to mistake. However, in a case where the confession is proved by evidence that the confession was not in conformity with the truth and it is recognized that the confession was due to mistake due to the previous purport of the pleading, the revocation of confession shall be allowed.

[2] The case holding that although the plaintiff's legal representative was presumed to have lost labor ability by the accident at the date of pleading in the first instance on the basis of the result of physical appraisal in the area of the state-specific, the plaintiff had been receiving medical treatment for a considerable period of time after the date of oral argument in the first instance. In particular, the plaintiff's commencement of mental disorder after the date of oral argument in the first instance court was sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance, and according to the result of physical appraisal in the first instance court, the plaintiff's legal representative could not be known that there was a chronic disorder only in the area of state-specific, sex, state-specific, state-specific, and state-specific, and state-specific, it is reasonable to determine that the plaintiff's legal representative could not be seen that there was a chronic disorder in the area of the state-specific, state-specific, chest, and rehabilitation, and that at the time of confession, the plaintiff could not make a confession if he knew that there was a subsequent disability other than the result of physical appraisal in the first instance court.

[1] Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 4294Da606 delivered on January 18, 1962 (No. 10-1, 37), Supreme Court Decision 91Da15591, 15607 delivered on August 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 2426), Supreme Court Decision 94Da31976 delivered on February 23, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1035)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

L branch Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na3035 delivered on June 19, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A confession in court may be revoked only when the confession proves that the confession was not in conformity with the truth and that the confession was due to mistake without the consent of the other party. However, in a case where the confession is proved by evidence that the confession was not in conformity with the truth and that the confession was due to mistake due to the previous purport of the pleading, the court should allow revocation of confession (see each of the Supreme Court Decisions 91Da15591, 15607, August 27, 1991; 94Da31976, Feb. 23, 1996).

However, according to the records, the plaintiff lost his ability to treat the plaintiff in the area of 1st 7th 5th son of the court below, and the remaining 1st 5th son of the court below's 4th son of the above 1st son of the 1st son of the 5th son of the 5th son's 5th son's 4th son of the 1st son's 5th son's son's 5th son's 4th son's son's son's 5th son's son's son's 6th son's son's 4th son's son's son's 5th son's son's 4th son's son's son's son's son's 5th son's son's son's 5th son's son's 5th son's son's 14th son's son.

The court below affirmed that the plaintiff lost labor ability by the accident in this case on the fifth day for pleading of the court of first instance, but judged that the confession was against the truth. In light of the records, it is justified that the judgment of the court below is just, and the plaintiff continued to provide medical treatment for a considerable period after the date of closing argument in the court of first instance, and in particular, the plaintiff's commencement of mental disorder was after the judgment of the court of first instance (Evidence No. 14-2 through 5, Evidence No. 16-1 through 57). According to the physical appraisal result of the court of first instance, the plaintiff's attorney at the court of first instance could not be known that there was a prone disorder only in the area of pathy, scarcity, depression, and rehabilitation, and that there was a prone disorder in the area of the court of first instance, and it could not be seen that the plaintiff could not be seen that there was a confession other than the aforementioned confession due to the purport of the court of first instance.

Therefore, the decision of the court below that recognized the revocation of confession is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the revocation of confession in the judgment below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds of appeal

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)