[소유권이전등기말소][공1988.11.15.(836),1404]
Whether there is a ground for retrial in a case where document forgery or false testimony has been quoted in order to recognize a fact which had been objectively expressed in the judgment subject to retrial.
Even if a document that served as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial is forged and the testimony of a witness was false, it is quoted to recognize facts that they have expressed in a family or additional manner on the grounds of the judgment subject to a retrial, and is related to circumstances that do not affect the recognition of major facts, it is not a ground for retrial.
Articles 422(1)6 and 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 74Da1643 delivered on July 22, 1975, 79Da1367 delivered on September 9, 1980, 82Da146 delivered on December 27, 1983
Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant
Defendant 1 and 11 others
Suwon District Court Decision 86No5, 87No2 delivered on July 3, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
1. A lawsuit for a retrial on a final judgment which became final and conclusive is permitted only when there exist grounds stipulated in Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act. The grounds for misunderstanding of legal principles as to inheritance of property due to adoption do not constitute a legitimate ground for retrial under Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act. The grounds for misunderstanding of legal principles as to inheritance of property due to adoption do not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 422 of the above Act. The grounds for appeal that there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles as to inheritance due to adoption of property due to the judgment subject to retrial
2. In a case where a suit for a retrial was instituted on the grounds that the forged document and the false statement of a witness were admitted as evidence for the judgment, the document was forged, and even if the witness testimony was false, if the document or testimony was quoted for the purpose of recognizing facts that have been expressed in the grounds for the judgment subject to retrial, and there was a circumstance that does not affect the recognition of major facts, it does not constitute grounds for retrial.
The Plaintiff’s testimony and testimony of the documents and witness alleged in the grounds for a retrial are related to the portions of the judgment subject to a retrial, which are determined additionally by the assumption of the judgment subject to a retrial, and even if there was no documentary evidence or witness testimony, it cannot affect the outcome of the judgment subject to a retrial. Thus, even if such documentary evidence is forged, and the testimony is false and false, it cannot be said that it constitutes grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)6 and 7
The judgment of the court below cited by the plaintiff as the ground for the retrial is related to factual relations that the judgment subject to a retrial was judged at home, and it seems that the plaintiff's ground for retrial was without merit, and therefore, it cannot be accepted in the judgment of the court below that there was an error of insufficient deliberation
As long as the above measures of the court below are justified, it is clear that there is no reason to determine whether there is a forgery of a documentary evidence, and whether the testimony of the non-party witness influenced the result of the judgment, so the judgment does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is clear that there is an error of law by misunderstanding legal principles and violation of the rules
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Song Man-Ba (Presiding Justice)