1. Revocation of confession;

2. Effect of notification of assignment of claims;

1. In revocation of confession, the confession must be proved to be contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and the burden of proof shall be borne by the person who asserts the revocation of confession; and

2. In the case of the transfer of claims, the obligor may set up against the assignee with the reason that occurred to the transferor, until he is notified of the transfer of claims from the transferor; and

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 451 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da922 delivered on February 28, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 62Da922 delivered on February 28, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 6764 delivered on June 11, 190; Supreme Court Decision 11Da123 delivered on June 12, 199; Decision

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Msan Branch (80 Ma188)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,200,000 won with 5% interest per annum from January 23, 1980 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,200,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from January 23, 1980 to the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

The court below witness Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of the non-party 1, and Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 without dispute over the facts of receipt, and the testimony of the above witness No. 2,200,000 won store balance claim against the defendant on Feb. 3, 1980, when considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the non-party 2 transferred the above assignment claim to the plaintiff on Feb. 3, 1980, and notified the defendant of the above assignment of claim and received it around June 7, 190, and there is no other evidence to reverse it (the plaintiff notified the above assignment of claim to the defendant on Feb. 5, 1980, and argued that the defendant received it around that time, but it seems consistent with this, it is insufficient to recognize the above facts differently by the defendant's address on Feb. 5, 1980.

The defendant defense that the non-party 2 joined the successful bid of KRW 5,00,000, which was organized by the defendant as the owner on February 17, 1979, and received KRW 4,500,000 on March 17, 1979, and did not pay KRW 300,000 each month after February 17, 1980, and did not pay KRW 300,000 each month from February 17, 1980, and the defendant paid KRW 3,90,000 on an equal amount. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the non-party 2 was admitted to the successful bid of KRW 5,00,00,00, which was organized by the defendant as the owner of the stock, is offset against the above equal amount. Thus, the non-party 2's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the lawsuit and that the non-party 1's assertion was not accepted on the date of pleading from the court of first instance on June 16, 1981.

If the testimony of Non-Party 4-1 and the above witness's testimony, which can be recognized as the authenticity by the testimony of Non-Party 3, and the testimony of Non-Party 4 and Non-Party 5 of the original trial witness, are collected to the testimony of Non-Party 5, the successful bidder is a quasi-loan type operated under the defendant's responsibility and the above successful bidder is a quasi-loan type operated under the defendant's responsibility and the non-party 2 receives 4,500,000 won on March 17, 1979, and pays 300,000 won to the defendant as of February 17, 1980, and it can be recognized that the fact that the defendant remains unpaid from February 17, 1980, and the testimony of Non-Party 2 of the original trial witness who is contrary thereto is not trusted, and if there is no other evidence to collect it again, the debtor can set off the above portion of the debt from the transferee to 100,000 won as a ground for the assignment of claim.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the above obligation to the defendant of the non-party 2 was fully settled by deducting the entire amount from the sales contract amount of the above store that the defendant would receive from the defendant before the assignment of the claim in this case.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's above claim 1,200,000 won out of the above claim 2,200,000 won against the non-party 2 was set off against the defendant's above claim for damages for delay of the part of the claim to be set-off, and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim against the non-party 2. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remaining amount set-off against the plaintiff and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from February 11, 1980 to the date following the due date for payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above recognized limit, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit (However, the judgment is erroneous in that the above damages for delay is calculated from February 10, 1980, but it is therefore justified in this case without the defendant's appeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 95 and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges fixed-name (Presiding Judge) Engines