In the Seoul High Court Decision 82Na313 (Seoul High Court Decision 82Na313), the Plaintiff’s testimony of the witness of the first instance court against the Defendant was one of the comprehensive evidence along with other evidence, and thus, the Plaintiff filed a complaint of perjury with respect to the statement made by the Defendant that he is not a joint guarantor among the testimony of the witness of the first instance court, and on the ground that he was not subject to prosecution on the ground that he was not subject to prosecution on the ground that he was not subject to prosecution on the ground that he was not able to institute a lawsuit of this case. The lower court determined that the above ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s principal is clear that the Plaintiff had already received a judgment on each instance by asserting in the preparatory documents

According to Articles 422(1)7 and 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, when a witness’s false statement becomes an evidence for a retrial, the court may file a lawsuit for retrial only when a judgment of conviction becomes final or a judgment of conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence. In addition, the proviso of Article 422(1) provides that a lawsuit for retrial may not be brought unless the parties have asserted the grounds by an appeal or have known the grounds therefor. In order for the parties to claim the grounds by an appeal, it is insufficient to argue that the facts of Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, such as where a witness’s false statement becomes an evidence for a retrial, and if it again speaks that it is the subject of a retrial, the facts of Article 65Da2236, Jan. 31, 196; see Supreme Court Decision 77Da540, Jun. 28, 197).

In this case, on the ground that the witness of the first instance court presented a perjury as to the facts as evidence in relation to the defendant, the plaintiff filed a complaint on February 17, 1986, which was after the loan case became final and conclusive, and it is evident that the prosecutor made a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that he did not have the right to institute a prosecution against the subsequent suspected perjury in relation to the crime committed as a whole in relation to the case in question. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be said to have already asserted such facts by appeal.

Although the court below should have deliberated and judged on the merits of a new case, it is recognized that there is a defect in the requirements for a new case without reaching them, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for new trial, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The arguments are reasonable

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon In-bok (Presiding Justice)