(a) A case where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles concerning revocation of confession;

(b) The case where it appears impossible to file a request for registration of transfer of shares;

Even if a confession contrary to the truth is made, it shall not be revoked unless it is proved that the confession has been made by mistake.

Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1140, 1141 delivered on June 22, 1966

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is examined.

The proviso of Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that confessions contrary to the truth may be cancelled when it is proved that such confessions are due to mistake. Thus, even if confessions contrary to the truth, it cannot be cancelled unless it is proved that there was an error. In this case, according to the fact that the plaintiff made a statement on the third date for pleading of the court of first instance (1964 May 27), the plaintiff purchased the land owned by the deceased non-party on March 2, 1949, and the price is paid on March 30 of the same year by paying the contract amount on the day, and the remaining amount is not paid in part on the above date (the payment was not made on that date). Thus, the defendant's agent's assertion that the remaining amount has been cancelled on the confessions of the court of first instance as stated in the above legal reasoning on the date for pleading of the court of first instance on July 20, 1964, and it is clear that the remaining amount has been paid on the confession of the plaintiff 164.

The second point is examined in the same reason.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff purchased the part of 4206 square meters specified in the Kimpo-gun of Gyeonggi-do, Kimpo-gun, 6297 from the deceased deceased deceased deceased's decedent, and received the part of 6297 square meters, but only 2406/6297 equity shares currently exist in the name of the defendant, and 3891/6297 equity shares remaining in the name of the non-party after the purchase and sale contract. Since the registration of ownership transfer was passed through the non-party's share transfer on the ground of part of share after the purchase and sale of this case, the plaintiff can not file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer by dividing the specific portion of the plaintiff's share in the relation with the defendant, and as such, the defendant has a duty to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party to the above land remaining in his name. However, as established in the judgment of the court below, if the plaintiff purchased the part of the above 2406 equity shares in his name, the non-party's specific share transfer registration.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges for more than one reason.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu