Whether or not the revocation of a confession may be impliedly cancelled, and if it is proved against the truth in the revocation of a confession, the presumption of mistake;

A. The revocation of a confession in court is not necessarily required to be explicitly stated, but can be implicitly made by asserting the facts contrary to the previous confession. However, even in this case, the party revoking the confession is not presumed to be a confession due to mistake on the ground that it proves that the confession is due to mistake other than that contrary to the truth, and that it is contrary to the truth.

B. In a lawsuit for payment, the plaintiff's standing as a party itself is nominal, and the determination is absorptiond into the judgment on the propriety of the claim. Thus, the claimant for his claim for payment is a legitimate plaintiff, and the person asserted as the obligor is a legitimate defendant.

(a) Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act:

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da465 delivered on May 22, 1979 (Gong1979, 11983) (Gong1990, 1562). (B) Supreme Court Decision 75Da1676 delivered on June 26, 1997 (Gong197, 10264) (Gong1989, 1293). Supreme Court Decision 88Da26499 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1293)

Korea Highway Corporation (Attorney Kim Shin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The Busan canalian Department, an incorporated association

Busan District Court Decision 93Na14308 delivered on February 3, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party Republic of Korea purchased each of the instant real estate from the defendant on March 2, 1990 at KRW 19,225,00 and paid the full purchase price on the 6th of the same month. According to the relevant provisions, the management agency on the motorway shall be the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the management agency on the motorway shall allow the plaintiff as an independent corporation, and the plaintiff shall be deemed to be the management agency on the motorway within the scope of vicarious execution by the Minister of Construction and Transportation. However, as long as there are no special provisions in law, the plaintiff as a managing agency on the motorway shall not immediately exclude the Republic of Korea from its status and shall not immediately file a civil suit under his own name. Thus, the plaintiff as the plaintiff shall be dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground that it is not qualified to institute the lawsuit

However, according to the records, the defendant led to the confession that there is no dispute over the fact that the sales contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the date of the first pleading of the court of first instance (the plaintiff is invoked in the preparatory document dated November 2, 1992 stated on the date of the third pleading of the court of first instance). On the date of the second pleading of the court below, the parties to the above sales contract are not the plaintiff but the state.

The revocation of a confession during a trial does not necessarily have to be explicitly stated, but can be impliedly made by asserting the facts contrary to the previous confession. However, even in this case, the parties that revoke a confession do not regard the confession as a confession due to mistake on the ground that it is proven that the confession would go against the truth and that it goes against the truth (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu14240, Jun. 26, 1990).

Therefore, even though the defendant's confessions in the court of first instance are contrary to the truth and can be cancelled when it proves that they are due to mistake, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is the purchaser of the land of this case without examining and determining whether the confessions in the court of first instance has been valid, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to cancellation of the confessions in the court of first instance or in the incomplete hearing.

In addition, in a lawsuit for payment, the plaintiff's standing as a party itself is nominal, and the judgment is absorptioned into the judgment of the propriety of the claim, so the claimant for his claim for payment is a legitimate plaintiff, and the person alleged as the obligor is a legitimate defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 75Da1676 delivered on August 23, 1977). According to the records, it is obvious that the claim in this case is a lawsuit for payment for which the plaintiff cancelled the sales contract at the time of original sale and seeks the return of the purchase price. Thus, the court below should have deliberated and decided on the merits.

The court below did not reach this point and dismissed the lawsuit of this case as it was filed by a person who is not qualified to file a lawsuit, and it was unlawful, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the standing to sue, and there is a ground

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Chocheon-sik (Presiding Justice)