A. Whether Article 126(b) or Article 108(2) of the Civil Act may apply mutatis mutandis where a person who has been granted the right of representation to create a security right has completed the registration of ownership transfer under his/her name and then completed the registration of ownership transfer again to a third

B. Whether a party to a lawsuit may be deemed as a confession in a trial where the other party invoked that the party has made a statement consistent with the allegations of the other party in a criminal case or in an investigative agency

A. Where Eul granted only the right of representation for the establishment of a security right to real estate from Gap, and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer to Byung, Byung believed Eul as Eul's agent, and did not commit any act of causing the above registration, and if Eul cannot be deemed as having conspired with and used the act of causing the above registration with respect to Eul's registration of ownership transfer under Eul's name, or neglected it with the knowledge thereof, it cannot be inferred by analogy Article 126 (b) of the Civil Act.

B. Judicial confession refers to a statement unfavorable to a party himself/herself during the oral proceedings or preparation proceedings and consistent with the allegations of the other party. Thus, even if a party to a domestic lawsuit made a statement in compliance with the allegations of the other party in a criminal case or in an investigative agency, and the other party invoked a letter containing this statement, it cannot be deemed as a confession within a trial

(a)Articles 108(2) and 126(b) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 80Da1475 delivered on December 22, 1981 (Gong1982, 212). Supreme Court Decision 72Da130 delivered on February 29, 1972 (No. 201Da142 delivered on May 26, 1987) (Gong1987, 1044)

Plaintiff

Defendant Law Firm Il-gu Seoul East Law Office, Attorneys Hong Hong-sil et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na1068 delivered on December 12, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1 received his seal imprint certificate from the plaintiff, and borrowed money from the non-party 1 company on behalf of the plaintiff upon the request that the plaintiff receive the loan by using the real estate located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul ( Address 1 omitted) as a collateral. When the above company received a certificate of the right to the real estate of this case on behalf of the plaintiff, the above company's transfer of the right to the real estate of this case was completed by using the above certificate of right and the above seal imprint certificate in mind. The above transfer registration is invalid and invalid as it was completed without any cause and the above transfer registration is invalid and the above-mentioned transfer registration is also invalidated. The court below's fact-finding and judgment delivered it to the non-party 1 as well as the registration certificate of the real estate of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's intention is related to the non-party's transfer registration under the name of the non-party. Thus, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above transfer registration of ownership of the non-party is invalid.

In addition, where Nonparty 1 was granted the right of representation for the creation of a security right to real estate located in the new road by the Plaintiff, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the instant real estate in his future, and thus, the Defendant believed the above Nonparty to be the Plaintiff’s agent and did not commit the act of causing the above registration, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have conspired with and used the above Nonparty’s name, or neglected it with the knowledge of it, as seen below. Thus, Article 126(b) and Article 108(2) of the Civil Act cannot be inferred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Da1475, Dec. 22, 1981). The argument is without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As above, the court below recognized that Non-party 1 entered the registration certificate of the real estate of this case into the hand and used this document and the plaintiff's seal imprint certificate in mind, and therefore, the registration of the ownership transfer of this case was not unlawful, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, a confession during a trial refers to a statement unfavorable to himself/herself who was made in the oral proceedings or preparation proceedings and consistent with the allegations of the other party. As such, even if the Plaintiff made a statement in the court or investigation agency of a criminal case related to the instant case consistent with the Defendant’s allegations, and the Defendant invoked a letter containing this statement, it cannot be deemed as a confession during a trial. All arguments are

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

As to the defendant's assertion that "the plaintiff seems to have implicitly approved the registration of transfer of ownership in this case under the name of the non-party 1, so Article 108 (2) of the Civil Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis." Even though the court below determined that Article 126 of the Civil Act is applied by analogy and ratification in addition to whether Article 108 (2) of the Civil Act is applied by analogy, it cannot be said that there is an error of law affecting the conclusion

In addition, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff knew that the non-party 1 had registered the non-party 1's fraudulent registration of this case and delivered a explanatory note from the above non-party to the restoration to its original state, and then believed that "I would continue to resolve the non-party 1." during that period, the plaintiff could not be deemed to have neglected the registration of the non-party 1's fraudulent registration. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no illegality in law as to the non-party 1's fraudulent registration.

All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)