[1] The meaning of "when documents and other items constituting evidence of judgment, which are grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, have been forged"

[2] The contents of measures to be taken by the court as part of the examination of evidence in conducting the appraisal of the identity of the seal

[1] "When a document or any other article, which has been used as evidence for a judgment" under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, is forged or altered, refers to a case where the forged document, etc. is provided as direct or indirect material for fact-finding which has become the ground for the order of judgment and the court rendered a judgment different from the pertinent judgment if it did not take into account the forged document, etc., and it is probable that the judgment can be recognized even if there is no evidence other than the forged document, etc., or there is no possibility that the text of the judgment would vary if there is no forged document, etc., or that the forged document, etc. will be quoted for fact-finding in order to recognize facts which could have changed if there was no forged document, etc., or that there was a circumstance that does not affect the recognition of major facts in the grounds for retrial. "Forgery" here includes false public document or false entry in the original copy of a notarial deed, which can be punished.

[2] In conducting an appraisal of the identity of the seal imprint as a part of the examination of evidence, the court shall determine in advance the value of the seal imprint through the exercise of the right to request for an appraisal as well as whether the documents, etc. stamped the relevant seal imprint before ordering the appraisal are appropriate for the appraisal. Thus, if the court has rejected the probative value of the above appraisal result on the ground that the object of appraisal is the copy after the completion of the appraisal and the value of the seal imprint cannot be confirmed without neglecting it, the court erred in the procedure.

[1] Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 126, 262, 263, and 305 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Da557 delivered on September 28, 1982 (Gong1982, 1007), Supreme Court Decision 87Da1973, 1974 delivered on October 11, 198 (Gong1988, 1404), Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20566 delivered on September 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2874)

Plaintiff (Re-Examination Plaintiff) (Attorney Kim Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Re-Defendant) 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na242 delivered on February 28, 1997

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (Appellant).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a document or any other article which has been used as evidence for a judgment has been forged or altered. "When such forged document or any other article has been provided as direct or indirect material for fact-finding which has become the ground for the order of the judgment, it is probable that the court would have rendered a judgment different from the relevant judgment if it had not taken into account the forged document or any other article, etc., and it is not probable that the judgment can be recognized even if there is no evidence other than the forged document, etc., or that the order of the judgment would vary if there was no forged document or any other article, etc., or if it was cited for the purpose of recognizing facts which have been expressed in a family or additional statement in the reason for the judgment subject to retrial and it was related to facts which have no influence on the recognition of major facts, it does not constitute grounds for retrial (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu20566, Sept. 23, 199; hereinafter referred to as "Forgery" includes a false public document or an original notarial document which can be punished or a false entry.

According to the records, the plaintiff's ground for retrial is that Gap's certificate Nos. 3-4 (Certificate of Seal Imprint) as evidence of the judgment subject to retrial was forged. However, the part that cited the statement Nos. 3-4 as evidence of the judgment subject to retrial is a document where the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff)'s mother of the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) acquired money from another person on or around September 1979 when the plaintiff was in military service and acquired money from the defendant (the defendant, hereinafter the defendant, the plaintiff) in order to complete payment, the plaintiff's right to the real estate of this case and the plaintiff's seal imprint were kept in custody without the plaintiff's permission. The plaintiff's second provisional registration was completed on February 12, 1980 as stated in the above defendant's name, and the remaining defendant (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff)'s mother was not issued a provisional registration under the defendant's name and the plaintiff's provisional registration No. 1's right transfer registration was not made under the plaintiff's title No. 1 and the plaintiff's ground for invalidation. 3.

In this regard, the judgment subject to review cannot be seen as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is somewhat insufficient in its reasoning. However, since the judgment of the court below is the object of appraisal with respect to the result of appraisal directly ordered by the court below among the reasons for the judgment, it is difficult to believe the result of the appraisal, or since the comparison seal is not verified as being at the time of the plaintiff, the result of the appraisal is different from the seal affixed on No. 3-4 of the evidence No. 3 and the seal affixed on Jan. 8, 1980 (No. 4-4 of the evidence No. 4), it is difficult to recognize the forgery of the evidence No. 3-4 merely because the result of the appraisal is different from the seal affixed on Jan. 8, 1980, the court below's failure to verify the value of the evidence before the appraisal is ordered as part of a wrong evidence examination, and it cannot be viewed as an object of appraisal without due to an exercise of the above evidence evidence.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)