Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Admission of an amended cause not plainly disputed
Supreme Court, Aug. 14, 2025, 2025Da211273 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 양수금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a plaintiff changes the claim and the cause of action at the appellate stage after the first-instance judgment, and the defendants, served with the papers on the change and the notice of hearing, neither appear nor file any pleading, must the newly asserted fact be deemed admitted under Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and does their denial of the original cause at the first hearing amount to a dispute of the amended cause?
Holding
The Court answered yes. Because the defendants, after being served with the papers changing the claim and the cause of action and the notice of hearing, neither appeared nor filed any pleading, they did not plainly dispute the assertion that a written settlement had been made after the first-instance judgment, and Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act requires that assertion to be deemed admitted. Under the principle of party presentation, their first-hearing denial of a debt owed to the assignor cannot be read as a dispute of the amended cause, so the appellate finding that there was no evidence to establish the plaintiff's assertion misconstrued Article 3(ii) of the Small Claims Trial Act.
Points at issue, verbatim
제1심판결 선고 후 각서를 작성하였다는 주장에 대하여 병 등이 명백히 다투지 않았으므로 민사소송법 제150조 제1항에 따라 병 등이 이를 자백한 것으로 보아야 하고, 변론주의 원칙상 병 등이 제1심에서 변경 전 청구원인 사실을 부인하는 취지의 진술을 하였다고 하여 원심에서 변경된 청구원인 사실을 다툰 것으로 볼 수 없는데도
Unofficial English translation
Since C and others did not clearly dispute the assertion that the written agreement had been prepared after the pronouncement of judgment of the court of first instance, C and others must be deemed to have admitted it pursuant to Article 150, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and under the principle of party presentation it cannot be regarded that C and others disputed the facts constituting the amended grounds for the claim at the court below merely by reason that C and others had made a statement at the court of first instance denying the facts constituting the grounds for the claim before the amendment, and yet
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
당사자가 변론에서 상대방이 주장하는 사실을 명백히 다투지 아니한 때에는 그 사실을 자백한 것으로 보며(민사소송법 제150조 제1항), 명백히 다투었는지는 변론종결 당시의 상태에서 당사자의 변론을 일체로 하여 종합적으로 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
Where a party has not clearly disputed, in oral argument, a fact asserted by the opposing party, that fact shall be deemed admitted (Article 150, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act), and whether the fact has been clearly disputed must be determined comprehensively in light of the entirety of the party's arguments as of the time of the close of oral argument
Factors
- 변론기일통지서를 송달받고서도 변론기일에 출석하지 않고 아무런 서면도 제출하지 않은 사안에서
- 제1심판결 선고 후 각서를 작성하였다는 주장에 대하여 병 등이 명백히 다투지 않았으므로
- 병 등이 제1심에서 변경 전 청구원인 사실을 부인하는 취지의 진술을 하였다고 하여 원심에서 변경된 청구원인 사실을 다툰 것으로 볼 수 없는데도
- 갑이 주장하는 사실을 인정할 증거가 없다며 청구를 전부 배척한 원심판단에는 소액사건심판법 제3조 제2호 위반의 잘못이 있다고
Unofficial English translation
• in a case where, notwithstanding that the notice of the date of oral argument was served, they did not appear on the date of oral argument and submitted no written document whatsoever,
• since C and others did not clearly dispute the assertion that the written agreement had been prepared after the pronouncement of judgment of the court of first instance,
• and it cannot be regarded that C and others disputed the facts constituting the amended grounds for the claim at the court below merely by reason that C and others had made a statement at the court of first instance denying the facts constituting the grounds for the claim before the amendment, and yet,
• the determination of the court below rejecting the claim in its entirety on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge the facts asserted by A contains an error of violating Article 3, subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act,
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2012. 5. 24. 선고 2012다19758 판결, 대법원 2014. 2. 27. 선고 2012다37015, 2012다37022(독립당사자참가의소) 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2012Da19758 decided May 24, 2012, Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da37015, 2012Da37022 (independent party intervention action) decided February 27, 2014, etc.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1992. 2. 14. 선고 91다31494 판결(공1992, 1026), 대법원 2012. 5. 24. 선고 2012다19758 판결, 대법원 2014. 2. 27. 선고 2012다37015, 37022 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the defendants disputed some facts at the first-instance hearing, how is that partial dispute weighed in deciding whether they plainly disputed the amended cause of action at the appellate stage?
The judgment of the Busan District Court on remand will show how the admission rule is applied when the defendants stay away from the hearing. A later decision on when a denial of the original cause counts as a dispute of the amended cause, or an amendment to Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, would require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Existing test applied”
The issues cover both the general requirements for deemed admission and their application to an unanswered new agreement allegation, allowing different choices of emphasis.
변론주의 원칙상 병 등이 제1심에서 변경 전 청구원인 사실을 부인하는 취지의 진술을 하였다고 하여 원심에서 변경된 청구원인 사실을 다툰 것으로 볼 수 없는데도Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Busan District Court, sitting on appeal in its judgment of 13 February 2025 (2024Na41984), kept the first-instance dismissal in place. It found that there was no evidence establishing the plaintiff's assertion that a written settlement agreement of 6 February 2024 had been made after the first-instance judgment, and held that since only the plaintiff had appealed, the prohibition of reformatio in peius barred a judgment adverse to the appellant, so it dismissed the appeal.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the defendants did not plainly dispute the assertion that the settlement agreement was written after the first-instance judgment, and that Article 150(1) of the Civil Procedure Act required it to be deemed admitted. It held that under the principle of party presentation, the defendants' denial of the original cause of action at the first hearing did not make them a party disputing the amended cause, so the appellate finding of no evidence was a decision contrary to Supreme Court precedent within Article 3(ii) of the Small Claims Trial Act. It reversed the whole judgment and remanded the case to the Busan District Court, by the unanimous opinion of the participating Justices.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the state at the close of argument, taken as a whole, shows that the fact was disputed.
- A case in which the defendants appear at the hearing or file a pleading after service of the papers changing the claim and the cause of action, so that the amended cause is plainly disputed.
- A case not tried under the Small Claims Trial Act, where the reversal ground in Article 3(ii) of that Act cannot be relied on.
Record verification notes
Confirm from the file that the defendants were served with the copy of the appellate brief and the copy of the application to change the claim and the cause of action, as well as the notice of hearing, and that nothing followed from them, since the admission turns on the absence of a plain dispute. Then set against the record the content of their first-hearing statement, that they owed no debt to the assignor, and check whether the dispute was directed at the original or the amended cause. Finally check whether the case was tried as a small claims case, and note the sums at issue: KRW 25,490,000 claimed, with KRW 2,490,000 written off and KRW 23,000,000 left to pay under the asserted agreement.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 변론주의의 원칙 / 자백간주의 성립 요건 및 당사자가 상대방이 주장하는 사실을 명백히 다투었는지 판단하는 방법 [2] 갑이 을로부터 병 등에 대한 채권을 양도받았다며 병 등을 상대로 채권양도에 따른 양수금의 지급을 구하는 소를 제기하자, 병 등이 제1심에서 ‘을에게 채무를 부담한 사실이 없다.’고 진술하였고, 이후 제1심법원이 위 채권양도가 소송행위 목적으로 이루어진 것이어서 무효이므로 갑에게는 당사자적격이 없다며 소를 각하하자, 갑이 항소심에서 제1심판결 선고 후 을 및 병 등과 위 양수금 중 일부를 면제하고 나머지는 지급하기로 하는 합의각서를 작성하였다며 병 등에게 각서에 따른 약정금의 지급을 구하는 것으로 청구취지 및 청구원인을 변경하였는데, 병 등이 항소장 부본, 청구취지 및 청구원인 변경신청서 부본 등과 변론기일통지서를 송달받고서도 변론기일에 출석하지 않고 아무런 서면도 제출하지 않은 사안에서, 제1심판결 선고 후 각서를 작성하였다는 주장에 대하여 병 등이 명백히 다투지 않았으므로 민사소송법 제150조 제1항에 따라 병 등이 이를 자백한 것으로 보아야 하고, 변론주의 원칙상 병 등이 제1심에서 변경 전 청구원인 사실을 부인하는 취지의 진술을 하였다고 하여 원심에서 변경된 청구원인 사실을 다툰 것으로 볼 수 없는데도, 갑이 주장하는 사실을 인정할 증거가 없다며 청구를 전부 배척한 원심판단에는 소액사건심판법 제3조 제2호 위반의 잘못이 있다고 한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The principle of party presentation / The requirements for the principle of admission and the method of determining whether a party has clearly disputed the fact asserted by the opposing party [2] Where A filed an action against C and others seeking payment of the money claim assigned to him pursuant to the assignment of claim, asserting that he had been assigned from B the claim against C and others, and C and others stated at the court of first instance that "they had never owed any debt to B," and thereafter the court of first instance dismissed the action on procedural grounds on the ground that the aforesaid assignment of claim was made for the purpose of an act of litigation and therefore void and that A lacked party standing, whereupon A, at the appellate stage, amended the purport of the claim and the grounds for the claim to seek payment of the agreed sum under the written agreement from C and others, asserting that after the pronouncement of judgment of the court of first instance he had prepared a written agreement with B and C and others providing that a portion of the aforesaid assigned money claim would be exempted and the remainder paid, in a case where, notwithstanding that C and others were served with copies of the appellate brief, the written application for amendment of the purport of the claim and the grounds for the claim, etc., and the notice of the date of oral argument, they did not appear on the date of oral argument and submitted no written document whatsoever, the court below erred in holding that it violated Article 3, subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act by rejecting the claim in its entirety on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge the facts asserted by A, since C and others must be deemed to have admitted, pursuant to Article 150, paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the assertion that the written agreement had been prepared after the pronouncement of judgment of the court of first instance, inasmuch as they did not clearly dispute it, and since, under the principle of party presentation, it cannot be regarded that C and others disputed the facts constituting the amended grounds for the claim at the court below merely by reason that C and others had made a statement at the court of first instance denying the facts constituting the grounds for the claim before the amendment, and yet
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 부산지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Busan District Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제150조 제1항, 제203조[변론주의] / [2] 민사소송법 제150조 제1항, 제203조[변론주의]
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger