[구상금][미간행]
[1] The meaning of "when a civil or criminal judgment, or any other judgment or administrative disposition based on a judgment has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition," which is a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act
[2] In a case where a criminal judgment, etc., employed as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, was changed after the sentence was rendered, but the remaining evidence alone could sufficiently establish the facts of the judgment subject to a retrial, whether the judgment, which served as the basis for the judgment subject to
[1] Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da13694 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong1991, 2248) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da33897 delivered on November 25, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 97) Supreme Court Decision 94Da20570 delivered on May 31, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 2004) (Gong2003Da55936 delivered on June 24, 2005)
Jeju Bank, Inc.
Korea Asset Management Corporation (Law Firm Pok, Attorneys Jeong-sil et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 2004ReNa82 delivered on July 22, 2005
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant (the plaintiff).
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a judgment or any other judgment or administrative disposition, which is the basis of a judgment, has been changed by a different judgment or administrative disposition," which is a ground for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to a case where the judgment or administrative disposition, which has become a basis of a final judgment, legally binding, or which has become a basis of fact-finding at that final judgment, has been finally and retroactively changed by another judgment or administrative disposition, and thus, it is difficult to view that the judgment, etc. as a basis for fact-finding, has been adopted as evidence in the final judgment and there is a possibility that the change in the judgment, etc. would affect the final judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da33897, Nov. 25, 1994; 2003Da55936, Jun. 24, 2005).
The lower court: (a) filed a charge of forging the instant guarantee by the Nonparty (hereinafter “Defendant”) but filed a claim for a summary order for a crime of false accusation; (b) subsequently, the said summary order became effective and the judgment of innocence against the Defendant became final and conclusive; (c) however, the remainder of the evidence except the above summary order can sufficiently be able to establish the facts of the judgment subject to retrial; (d) determined that the judgment of innocence against the Defendant cannot be deemed as constituting grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the aforementioned circumstance, cannot be deemed as falling under the grounds for retrial under Article 45
In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for retrial as alleged in the grounds for appeal.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)