Revocation of confession as to the formation of documents

A confession as to the formation of a document shall be made only with respect to the existence of a confession as to the facts of assistance, but the revocation shall be treated the same as the withdrawal of a confession as to an indirect fact, unlike the revocation of a confession as to other indirect facts, so the party who has admitted the authenticity

Articles 261 and 328 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da225 Decided April 4, 1967

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant Doctrine et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na3794 delivered on December 9, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below agreed to pay half of the construction cost to the non-party 2, who is the beneficiary and his creditor, in consideration of various documentary evidence such as Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Agreement) and the whole purport of the testimony and pleading by the non-party 1 witness of the court of first instance on Aug. 30, 1983, and agreed to pay half of the construction cost to the plaintiff who is the beneficiary and the non-party 2, as a result of the payment of the above construction cost, etc., while the construction project was not in progress as scheduled as a result of the dispute between the defendant and the non-party 2 on Dec. 18, 1984, the above dispute was filed and the construction period was extended until Jan. 18, 1985, and there was an implied agreement not to claim compensation for delay of the construction project which was agreed on May 29, 1984.

As pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit, it is not reasonable for the court below to have an expression that can be ratified with the above fact-finding, and to have an expression that can be ratified, and therefore, it is difficult to say that there is a contradiction in the reasoning of the judgment, since it is the fact-finding by evidence.

2. As to the evidence No. 2 (a copy of a delegation letter), the defendant recognized the authenticity at the first date for pleading of the first instance court, and submitted a partial alteration or alteration of the document at the third date for pleading following the fact that the existence of the original document was recognized, and despite the fact, it is apparent by the records and reasons of the judgment that the court below adopts the evidence without making a judgment as to the evidence objection of the above documentary evidence. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's alteration objection. Furthermore, although the confession as to the formation of a document is a confession as to the fact of assistance, the confession as to the establishment of a document should be treated equally with the revocation of a confession as to an indirect fact, unlike the revocation of a confession as to the indirect fact, and thus, the party who recognized the authenticity of the document cannot freely withdraw it (see Supreme Court Decision 67Da225, April 4, 1967).

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)