B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground of an error of law, such as misunderstanding legal principles, where the testimony of a witness who has been convicted of perjury had influenced the order of the judgment

B. The court below's rejection of the evidence cited in the judgment subject to review without reasonable grounds, even if the remaining evidence is excluded from the above-mentioned portion, it is sufficiently possible to make a judgment such as the text of the judgment, even if the remaining evidence is found to be sufficient. In addition, even though the court below judged that the application for a final appeal that the selection of evidence subject to review violated the rules of evidence was dismissed from the party members and that there was no violation of the rules of evidence selection, it cannot be said that the court below violated the rules of evidence selection.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides a witness’s false statement, which is a ground for retrial as provided for in Article 422(1)7 of the same Act, as fact-finding data that affects the text of judgment. If there is a probable probability that the text of judgment would vary if the false statement had not been made, then only the remaining evidence, except the false statement, does not affect the text of judgment, even if the false statement was made, it does not constitute a ground for retrial (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu356, Jun. 23, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant and ruled against the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance was revoked, and the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was rendered, and the defendant applied for a final appeal with the purport of violating the rules of evidence against the party members, but the judgment of the court of appeal became final and conclusive upon dismissal of the application, which became final and conclusive as it is. This is because the part of 1/2 shares in the name of the defendant among the registration in the name of the plaintiff in the name of the plaintiff in respect of the forest of this case, which is the defendant's claim that the plaintiff who terminated the title trust contract of this case, was liable to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of the name of the plaintiff in relation to the ownership shares, one of the above facts-finding materials was the witness in the appellate court, and the witness was punished for perjury as at the time of the judgment of the court below, and the judgment of the court of appeal of this case became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the plaintiff's purchase price of the forest of this case was just for the defendant 2's co-ownership.

However, as seen above, as the judgment subject to review was listed in the judgment, various evidences are deemed as comprehensive evidence. Among them, even if the above above portion of evidence is excluded, it shall be sufficient to make a judgment as to the order of the judgment, and it shall not be said that it has been made just by the remaining evidence, but it shall not be said that the defendant's motion for permission of an appeal to which the defendant's motion for permission of an appeal subject to review violated the rules of evidence is dismissed from party members and that it is not erroneous in the selection of evidence preparation without any reasonable reason, to reject the evidence cited in the same judgment without any reasonable reason.

Therefore, the original judgment has such illegality and it is obvious that it had influenced the judgment, that is, the original judgment has been reversed and remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)