The purport of Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when a false statement of a witness has been proved by evidence of a judgment"

The purport of Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when the false statement of a witness is proved as evidence of the judgment," which is stipulated as grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)7, refers to cases where the false statement is provided as materials for fact-finding based on which the text of the judgment is based, but in this case, it is again deemed that the false statement was provided as materials for fact-finding, including cases where it is probable that if the false statement was not taken into account, it would have made a judgment different from the judgment in question.

Shoho Lake

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Gwangju High Court Decision 72Na1 delivered on August 16, 1974

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the defendant's false testimony was made to the defendant 1 at the time of issuance of the above 3-year receipts for the defendant 1, and the defendant's testimony was made to the defendant 2 at the time of issuance of the above 1-year receipts for the above 3-year receipts for the defendant 1 (the above 1-year receipts for the defendant 4-year receipts for the defendant 1). However, according to the court below's ruling that the above 1-year receipts for the defendant 3-year receipts for the above 1-year receipts for the defendant 2 were not recorded in the 1-year receipts for the above 1-year receipts for the defendant 3-year receipts for the above 1-year receipts for the defendant 3-year receipts for the defendant 2, and that the above 1-year receipts for the defendant's testimony were not recorded in the 1-year receipts for the defendant 2-year receipts for the defendant 1-year receipts for the defendant 1-year receipts for the 3-year receipts for the defendant 1-2.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the above false statement had influenced the above final judgment, and even though the above final judgment was made that the testimony of the witness 1 and 2 was not believed in light of the witness 1 and the testimony of the above witness 1 and Kim Dong-dong, it cannot be deemed that the above witness 1 and 2 were punished for perjury.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below with different views is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the grounds for retrial, and since the illegality of the court below affected the outcome of the trial, it is reasonable to reverse the judgment of the court below, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)