다툼없는 간접사실의 구속력에 관한 연구

Abstract

Confession is materialized to a fact in issue, and a court restrains a court for the purpose of having to set the confessed fact as the foundation of judgment as it is, and restrains the party concerned in the meaning that withdrawal is freely impossible. A writer thinks that the principle of holding a trial according to the fact which the party concerned confessed by pleading principle must be observed,and the binding force of confession generates a court also at a court with such a principle. The first, indirect facts cannot be called confession, although the object of confession is accepted only within the fact in issue to which pleading principle is applied and has the same outside as confession to an indirect facts. therefore,a writer throws away the method of telling the confession to an indirect fact or the auxiliary fact to the former, and explaining the effect, and thinks that he will define ‘the indirect facts for which is not contested’ which the court opened the trial date, checked and arranged to the party concerned, and was written above the protocol for hearing. The second, A court will be accepted without investigation of the indirect fact of evidence if it does not contest about the existence about indirect fact. I hear that therefore, the attitude of such a court will end finding of fact procedure,and will advance psychology promptly as the result supposing ‘the Indirect facts which is written in the protocol for hearing and not contested’. And regardless of pleading principle, a court receives the indirect fact as for which argument does not have the party concerned, of course based on an estoppel (faith rule)and a self-responsibility principle of law. If the right of a finding of fact of a court is eliminated according to the binding force of the confession to Fact in issue and the party concerned is also going to withdraw this, it will be said that it must make the requirements for cancellation of confession satisfy.