Earticle

초록

영어

Once the confession in a trial is established valid, the court of justice must base it as the ground of the verdict without asking the authenticity of the confessed fact. Also, the confessor is bound by the confession and is restricted from making fact assertions that opposes the confession. And the opposite party become unable to prove the existence of the confessed fact.
In other words, a confession has the validity of excluding the jurisdiction of court on the confessed fact and at the same time has a binding force on the confessor. When taken in the perspective of the formation of litigation procedures, a confession makes the proof procedures of confessed fact, has the validity of procedure formation that advances the procedure and has the validity of settling the base fact of the judicial decision.
Therefore, the confessor is not allowed to withdraw this in principle. A confession is a act of litigation, has no cancellation clause in the General Provisions of the Civil Code and can only be withdrawn by the exceptional conditions presecribed by the proviso 288 of the Code of Civil Procedures.
While there was no clause concerning the withdrawal clause of confession in the old code of civil procedures, Germany installed the express provision allowing withdrawal if the confession does not concur with the truth and also can be proven to be from an error in the article 290 of German cold of civil procedures, and even in the old code the commonly view and precedents recognized the withdrawal of confession under the same condition and the above German code, taking into the above article under consideration. Also, among the withdrawal conditions of nontruth and error, an error simply means that the confessor misunderstood a specific fact at the time of confession, and does not mean error in the civil law, or incongruency between the validity intention and the indicated action.
Because this is an action of litigation that has the characteristic of conception notification, in which the legal characteristic of a confession reports a specific fact on the court of justice in the justice, there is a precedent recognizes a confession caused by an error just by the intent of general pleading.
However, strictly restricting the withdrawal of confession by the express provision 288 of the Cold of Civil Procedures is not natural when reviewed under comparative law. The clause 2, article 266 of the Austrian code of civil procedures make the validity of confession in justice to be up to the discretion of the court, and, even in the mother law country Germany, the condition of error is not strictly demanded as long as there is the proof of nontruth. Also, the code of civil procedure of Japan does not have any clause concerning the withdrawal of confession. The fact that the confession withdrawal conditions are applied in considerable mitigated form and the that the condition of the proof of error is mitigated in precedents in Germany provides sufficient grounds for an opportunity to review the confession withdrawal conditions. Especially If we recall that the article 263 of the German old code of civil procedure listing the proof of error as one of the confession withdrawal condition lead to an intense polemic on whether a confession as the confession characteristic is an intention indication or intention indication or conception indication and that the strict listing of confession withdrawal condition in the article 290 of the German code of civil procedures was thought as at least one cause of the distinction between claimed confession and fact confession in the polemic on the lawfulness of the claimed confession, the theoretical review of the confession withdrawal condition is a very important task.
Therefore, in this article, the withdrawal conditions of confession in court is examined. The precedents of Korea on the proviso clause of article 288 of the Code of Civil Procedure, precedents of Japan where there is not a particular express provision on the confession withdrawal conditions and theories asserted in Japan are examined. And the confession withdrawal conditions are theoretically reviewed.

목차

I. 문제의 제기
 II. 자백의 법적성질
  1. 서
  2. 의사표시설
  3. 사실보고설
  4. 소결
 III. 자백철회의 민사소송상 지위와 성질
  1. 서
  2. 자백철회가 민사소송에서 가지는 지위
  3. 자백철회의 성질
 IV. 자백의 철회요건과 방법
  1. 서
  2. 철회의 요건
  3. 철회의 방법
 V. 자백의 철회요건에 대한 재검토
  1. 서
  2. 판례의 검토
  3. 학설의 검토
 VI. 자백철회요건의 입법ㆍ정책적인 고려
  1. 서
  2. 진실의무이론을 적용하는 방법
  3. 증명이론에 의하는 방법
 VII. 결론
 참고문헌
 ABSTRACT

키워드

저자

• 이정환 [ Lee, Jeong-Hawn | 벽성대학 부동산행정과 강사, 원광대학교 일반대학원 법학과 박사과정. ]

참고문헌

발행기관

간행물

표지보기 관심저널 등록

• 간행물명

  원광법학 [Journal of Law research]

• 간기

  계간

• pISSN

  1598-429X

• eISSN

  2508-4526

• 수록기간

  1962~2026

• 등재여부

  KCI 등재

• 십진분류

  KDC 360 DDC 340