The actual cases where the court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to lawsuits for retrial;

If the Defendant appears to have known that the Defendant could not make a final judgment of conviction on the grounds other than lack of evidence regarding the crime of false preparation of official documents prior to the pronouncement of a final judgment subject to retrial, the original text of this Article is to proceed with the peremptory period from the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive, inasmuch as the original text of Article 422 (2) of this Act was falsely prepared and constitutes grounds for retrial.

Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 426 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. At least two persons:

East ASEAN Corporation

Daegu High Court Decision 63Na11 delivered on January 29, 1965

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant (Plaintiffs for retrial).

The court below's decision 200Hun-Ga1 and 2 (Notice of Reasons for Appeal No. 1, No. 2, No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2 (No. 1, No. 2, a certified copy of the record of statement No. 3, and No. 4, a certified copy of the record No. 2) regarding the above facts were not recorded in the court below's ruling No. 1, and the defendant's ruling No. 1, No. 2 (No. 9, a certified copy of the record of statement No. 3, a certified statement No. 2) regarding the above facts that the above facts were not recorded in the court below's ruling No. 1, No. 2, and the defendant's ruling No. 1, No. 9, which had been entered in the court below's ruling No. 1, No. 2, and the defendant's ruling No. 3, a new trial as to the above facts stated in the court below's ruling No. 2, and No. 1, the above facts were found to be accepted. 81,

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the ground that the lawsuit for retrial is dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Gyeong-ri, Kim & Kim