준재심
1. The appeal by the Defendant (Quasi-Review Plaintiff) is dismissed;
2. The defendant (Quasi-Review plaintiff) added to this court.
1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s “Defendant” at the second bottom of the judgment of first instance is dismissed as “Defendant, C, and D”; and (b) the Defendant’s additional grounds for quasi-examination are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of first instance, except for the determination by paragraph (2) as to the grounds for quasi-examination added by the Defendant in this court; and (c) thus
2. Determination on the part of the claim concerning the grounds for quasi-examination under Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act
A. Since criminal acts, such as fabrication of private document E, of the defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion, are a direct cause for failure of the defendant to submit a written objection on the decision subject to quasi-examination without submitting a written response even after the defendant received a copy of the written complaint of the case subject to quasi-examination, there exists a ground for quasi-examination corresponding to "when confession was made, or it was obstructed in submitting the method of offence or defense that may affect the judgment, due to any act committed by another person subject to criminal punishment" under Article 451 (1) 5 of
B. According to Article 451(1)5 of the Civil Procedure Act, a suit for a retrial may be instituted when a party makes a confession, or is obstructed in submitting a means of offence or defense that may affect the judgment, due to an act committed by another person subject to criminal punishment. This is for the protection of the party whose right of pleading has been infringed by the criminal act, and the act committed by another person subject to criminal punishment directly interferes with the confession or submission of a means of offence or defense in the relevant litigation procedure, and the occurrence of any effect under the substantive law was prevented, regardless of the pertinent litigation procedure.
Since there was any error in the facts, it cannot be interpreted that the court includes the case where the court makes a fact-finding as a result of such error, and the Supreme Court Decision 82Meu664 delivered on October 12, 1982.