The case reversing the legal principles of confession and incomplete hearing in the judgment of the court below which found facts different from the contents of confession without examining and determining whether the confession was made and whether the revocation was made, even though the confession was made after the confession was made, and whether the revocation was effective.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error in the misapprehension of legal principles of confession or incomplete hearing, by recognizing facts different from the contents of confession, without any deliberation and determination at all as to the establishment and revocation of confession, even though the parties made a statement to revoke confession by asserting new facts after the confession was made in conformity with the statements between the parties in the tax litigation.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 8 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Head of Nam Busan District Tax Office

Busan High Court Decision 89Gu596 delivered on May 15, 1991

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff was merely a police officer on or around April 3, 1974, and was discharged from office on or around around around around April 3, 1974, and married with the third party 1 on or around February 196. The non-party 1 was born in an internal relationship with the non-party 2, and was raising the non-party 3 on or after the fact that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case in consideration of retirement benefits before June 1972 and around May 1973 after the marriage with the non-party 1, but the registration of transfer of ownership was made in the name of the non-party 1 in the name of the non-party 1 on the land of this case, but the plaintiff was still subject to the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 on or around February 28, 1979. The court below determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the registration of transfer of the above land in the name of the non-party 1 under the name of the plaintiff 1 on the title trust.

2. However, according to the records, the plaintiff alleged that the land of this case was purchased as consolation money, etc. received when the non-party 1 was divorced from Jeonnam at the first date for pleading of the court below, and that the plaintiff obtained the consent of the non-party 1 when constructing a factory in part of the land. The defendant also asserted that the land of this case is the real estate owned by the non-party 1 in the reply written on the first and third date for pleading of the court below and in the preparatory document dated June 27, 1989, since the land of this case is the real estate owned by the non-party 1, it shall be deemed that the confession has been established by the agreement between the parties as to the fact that

However, the plaintiff, on the seventh day for pleading of the court below, revoked the prior confession by asserting a new fact that the land in this case was the real estate acquired by the plaintiff and trusted in title to the non-party 1 through the statement in the preparatory brief dated November 29, 1989. However, unless it is recognized that the confession was contrary to the truth and was based on mistake, the cancellation of confession is null and void. Thus, the court below cannot recognize facts different from the above confession. Nevertheless, since the court below acknowledged facts different from the above confession by the present evidence only without examining and determining at all the point of view as to the establishment and cancellation of the confession and the validity of revocation, it is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the confession and incomplete deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the court below's argument pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)