logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원고등법원 2020.11.12 2020나13096
소유권이전등기
Text

All appeals by the Defendant (Appointed Party) are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments as to the allegations added by the court of first instance or by the defendant (appointed party) to this court:

(The main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The main part of "the plaintiff" is all "the network A" and "E" are all "the plaintiff E".

The main text of the first instance judgment shall be deleted as follows.

On January 8, 2019, the Network A sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail containing a notice of assignment of the above assignment of claims, and C received the said notice at the designated party C’s domicile at the address. The following is added to paragraph (e) of Article 1 of the ":

"A. The deceased on August 29, 2020. The deceased on August 29, 2020, and the plaintiffs, parents of the deceased, jointly inherited the property of the deceased." The third party of the first instance judgment of "A. 14 and No. 15" is added to "A. 14 and No. 15."

The five-one to two-one-half of the judgment of the court of first instance shall have no dispute over the establishment of the authenticity of each of the instant applications as follows.

“The Defendant acknowledged the authenticity of each of the instant letters (Evidence A 2) on the date for pleading of the first instance trial, and argued that the court forced Plaintiff E to make up each of the instant letters. As regards the revocation of confession as to the authenticity of the documentary evidence, as in the revocation of confession as to the authenticity of the documentary evidence, the Defendant may revoke the confession that the confession was contrary to the truth, and that the confession was due to mistake, unless the other party has consented thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da47389, Jul. 11, 2019). The Defendant’s assertion constitutes revocation of confession as to the authenticity of each of the instant written statements. The Plaintiffs did not agree to revoke the confession, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is that the confession was contrary to the truth or due to mistake.

arrow