(a) Whether a confession is presumed to have been caused by mistake if it is proved that the withdrawal of confession goes against the truth;

B. Whether it is possible to revoke an implied confession

C. Whether the other party consented to the revocation of a confession only by the fact that the other party does not raise any objection to the revocation thereof

(a) The party that revokes a confession shall not be presumed to be a confession due to mistake, on the ground that the confession is due to mistake, in addition to that contrary to the truth, and that it has been proven contrary to the truth.

B. The revocation of a confession in court is not necessarily necessarily required to be explicitly indicated, but can be implied by asserting the facts contrary to the previous confession.

C. The confession takes effect with respect to the matters that are allowed to be disposed of by the parties in accordance with the principle of private autonomy. As such, even if confessions have been concluded, if the parties who made the confessions thereafter cancel the confessions and agree without raising any objection, the revocation of confessions should be recognized without considering the requirements for anti-proof and mistake. However, the mere fact that the other party does not raise any objection to the cancellation of confessions does not necessarily mean that the other party consented to the revocation thereof.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu14240 delivered on June 26, 1990 (1990,1562), 91Da6962 delivered on December 8, 1992 (193Sang, 408), and 94Da14797 delivered on June 14, 1994 (194Ha, 1960). Supreme Court Decision 87Meu69 delivered on July 7, 1987 (1987, 1310) (191, 215).

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na63148 delivered on March 23, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the above facts-finding legal principles, the parties to the confession shall prove that the confession was against the truth-finding, and shall not be presumed to have been confessions caused by mistake (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu14240, Jun. 26, 1990; 91Da21145, Dec. 24, 191; 91Da6962, Dec. 8, 1992; 94Da14797, Jun. 14, 199). On the other hand, the court below found the plaintiff's ability to prove that the plaintiff was 1,000 driver's ability to inquire into the facts-finding of the above facts-finding after being found to have been found to have been 1,000, and that the plaintiff was 3,000 driver's ability to inquire into the facts-finding of the plaintiff's body at the time of 1,000,000 won.

In the above purport, the decision of the court below that the defendant's revocation of confession has no validity is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the revocation of confession or in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

On the second ground for appeal

The revocation of a confession in court is not necessarily required to be explicitly stated, but can be impliedly made by asserting the facts contrary to the previous confession, and a confession takes effect in relation to the matters allowed to be disposed of by the parties in accordance with the principle of private autonomy. Thus, even if a confession has been concluded, if the confession has been revoked thereafter and the other party consents without raising any objection, then the revocation of the confession should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu20548, Nov. 27, 1990; 200Hun-Ba20548, Nov. 27, 1990). However, the mere fact that the other party does not raise any objection to the revocation of the confession cannot be deemed to have consented to the revocation thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu69, Jul. 7, 1987).

Therefore, as seen above, the plaintiff's attorney has been engaged in driving at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff's attorney has lost 30% labor ability at the time of the accident. Accordingly, even if the plaintiff asserted that the amount of damages should be calculated accordingly, this cannot be deemed to be contrary to the confession in the first instance court that the plaintiff's work ability as an urban worker due to the accident in this case was lost 20%, and thus, it cannot be deemed to have cancelled the confession or consented to the cancellation of the confession. Further, since the plaintiff or his legal representative did not raise any objection against the cancellation of confession in this case, it cannot be deemed to have consented to the revocation of confession.

In the above purport, the decision of the court below that the defendant's revocation of confession has no validity is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the revocation of confession or in violation of the rules of evidence.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)