[2] Where there is a ground for a retrial in a lawsuit seeking a retrial on a retrial on the original final judgment that was revoked, and the judgment of the previous retrial court that recognized the grounds for a retrial on the original final judgment, and where the original final judgment is not recognized as a ground for a retrial as a result of a retrial on the previous retrial, whether a court may hold a new trial and a trial on the merits of the final judgment that had no ground for retrial

[3] The meaning of "a judgment became the basis for the judgment" under Article 451 (1) 8 of the Civil Procedure Act

[4] In a case where the document as evidence of the judgment was forged or altered as a ground for retrial and there is no final judgment of conviction against the act, the applicant for a retrial shall prove such act

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”)’s assertion that the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) raised a new trial lawsuit after the lapse of the period for new trial, on the ground that it became aware that there existed grounds for new trial as asserted by the Plaintiff only when the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for new trial.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the period of retrial

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 5

A. (1) Article 451(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a lawsuit for retrial may be instituted against “a final judgment which has become final and conclusive,” and the final and conclusive judgment which has become final and conclusive in a lawsuit for retrial constitutes “a final and conclusive final and conclusive judgment” under this context, and thus, a lawsuit for retrial may also be instituted against a final and conclusive new judgment where there exists a ground for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 451(

Meanwhile, Article 454(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The court may first implement the deliberation and trial as to whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful and whether there exists a ground for retrial, separately from the deliberation and trial on the merits of the case.” Article 459(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides, “The pleading and trial on the merits shall be conducted within the scope of the grounds for request for retrial.” In a lawsuit for retrial on a final and conclusive judgment, the deliberation on the merits recognized that there is a ground for retrial in the litigation on a new judgment refers to the resumption and continuation of the arguments on the previous retrial, which is a litigation prior to the new judgment, which returned to the situation prior to the new judgment. Therefore, in a litigation on a new judgment that revoked a final and conclusive judgment, there is a ground for retrial in the judgment on the previous retrial court that recognized the original final and conclusive judgment on the final and conclusive judgment on the original retrial, if it is not recognized that a new judgment has become final and conclusive, the new judgment shall be revoked and dismissed, and in such case, it shall be deemed that

(2) Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “When a judgment was altered by a civil or criminal judgment or by any other judgment or administrative disposition which forms the basis of the judgment,” the grounds for retrial include not only cases where the judgment legally binding but also cases where the contents of the judgment were to be based on fact-finding in a final and conclusive judgment and it is likely that the change of the judgment would affect the fact-finding of the final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da20570, May 31, 1996, etc.).

Meanwhile, Article 422(1)6 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter the same) provides that “when a document or any other article supporting evidence of a judgment has been forged or altered,” as one of the grounds for retrial, Article 422(2) of the former Civil Procedure Act provides that “only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a final and conclusive judgment of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence may be instituted in the case of subparagraphs 4 through 7 of the preceding paragraph” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Nu7474, Feb. 26, 1985). Where a document supporting the judgment was forged or altered and the final and conclusive judgment of conviction cannot be rendered due to the completion of the statute of limitations for reasons other than lack of evidence, if there is no final and conclusive judgment of conviction or alteration, it shall be attested (see, etc.).

B. (1) After recognizing facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court revoked the instant judgment subject to a retrial for the following reasons, and dismissed the Defendant’s petition for retrial against Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798 decided June 3, 196 (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798”) (hereinafter “Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798”).

(A) The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 68Na20) rendered a non-prosecution disposition on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations in the case of preparation of false public documents regarding documents that are evidence of the Seoul High Court 65Na1798 (Seoul High Court 65Na1798), which became final and conclusive judgment, and (2) in light of the facts that the Defendants in the relevant criminal cases received a final and conclusive judgment of conviction, if the statute of limitations has not expired, the final and conclusive judgment of conviction was confirmed, and thus, there was a ground for retrial under Article 422(2) and (1)6 of the former Civil Procedure Act in Seoul High Court 65Na1798 (Seoul High Court 65Na1798 (Seoul High Court 65Na1798). The new judgment was pronounced to revoke the first judgment.

(B) However, in light of the fact that the criminal judgment, which served as the basis for the above determination, changed from the criminal review case to the verdict of innocence, and comprehensively taking account of other circumstances, there were grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)8 of the Civil Procedure Act, in so determining, the Seoul High Court Decision 68No20 delivered on December 6, 1989, which is the judgment subject to retrial.

(C) Furthermore, even in light of the Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1798, there are no grounds for retrial by the Defendant’s assertion that “when documents constituting evidence for judgment have been forged or altered,” and thus, the instant judgment subject to retrial, which was accepted by the Defendant’s request for retrial, is unreasonable.

(2) Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the deliberation and judgment of a new trial as to the final judgment which became final and conclusive, omitting judgment, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the base point of time for determining the grounds for new trial as to the final and conclusive judgment which is the original judgment subject to new trial, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the grounds for new trial as

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)