A. Whether the violation of the Supreme Court precedents on the interpretation of the disposition document constitutes the ground of appeal of right

B. The meaning of the confession during trial

A. The judgment of the court below that there is an error of law that misleads the interpretation of an invoice in violation of the opinion of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of a disposal document and recognized facts different from the contents of the statement is nothing more than a mere violation of the law, and the Supreme Court precedents of the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 428Da515 delivered on March 21, 1956) have declared that the above error constitutes a violation of law, and it does not constitute a ground under Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

(b) Judicial confession means the statement that conforms to the allegations of the other party and is disadvantageous to himself in the oral proceedings or preparation proceedings;

A. Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Article 329 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Daegu High Court Decision 83Na60 delivered on July 22, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1,

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below, on the ground of facts contrary to the facts duly confirmed by the court below, erred in the misapprehension of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2-2 (each statement) and found facts different from the contents of the lawsuit in the judgment of the court below. However, even if the judgment of the court below erred in the same manner as the theory of the lawsuit, it is nothing more than a mere violation of the law (violation of the No. 1 and 2-1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings) and the party members pointing out the theory of the lawsuit, declared that the above error constitutes a violation of the law and therefore,

Point 2,

Judicial confession refers to a statement of facts that conform to the allegations of the other party and that is disadvantageous to himself in the proceedings of pleading or preparation, and even if the records are written, the plaintiff cannot find out any trace of the plaintiff's defense of the defendant's assertion that he/she has led to a confession. Thus, there is no argument that the court below rejected the defendant's defense of repayment in violation of the precedents of party members as to the principle

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)