beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the defendant's 4th 12th 12th 12th 12th 12th 5th 5th 5th 12th 5th 5th 12th 5th 7th 7th 7th 7th 16th 16th 7th 16th 16th 7th 16th 2005th 205th 2005th 16th 7th 7th 7th 7th 7th 16th 16th 7th 20
2. The confession in the part of the trial accepted is a statement of facts unfavorable to himself/herself, consistent with the allegations by the other party on the date for pleading or the date for preparatory pleading, and once a confession in the trial is established, the court is bound by the fact, unless it is legally revoked. As such, the court may not admit by the evidence the facts established as to the facts not disputed between the parties, and if the confession is revoked, the court shall not prove by mistake that the confession was caused by mistake in addition to that contrary to the truth, and it shall not be presumed to have been proven that the confession was contrary to the truth.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da84288, 84295 Decided February 11, 2010, etc.). In a complaint submitted to the court of first instance to the court of first instance, the Plaintiff was merely a title trustee of the forest of this case, and the title truster was stated as O and J, and on the first date for pleading, December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff stated the aforementioned claim as above, and the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he/she recognized the above fact on the first date for pleading was clearly recorded in the record (the Defendant’s statement in the preparatory brief dated December 15, 2014). Accordingly, the confession was established as to the above claim of the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
In order for the plaintiff to cancel this, the confession is against the truth and it is necessary to prove that the confession was caused by mistake, and only the statement of evidence Nos. 3 through 21 is made.