beta
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The judgment of the court below
A. On July 8, 2005, the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the repair cost of machinery with Seoul Southern District Court 2005Gahap10945 (main lawsuit). The Defendant brought a lawsuit seeking damages with the same court 2005Gahap20409 (Counterclaim). On November 3, 2006, the same court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the main lawsuit and declared the Defendant’s judgment citing the Defendant’s counterclaim (hereinafter “the judgment of the first instance”).
On January 16, 2009, the court of first instance revoked the judgment of the court of first instance, accepted most of the plaintiff's claims, and rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's counterclaim (hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of retrial") on May 14, 2009, and the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on May 14, 2009, which became final and conclusive.
In the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiff asserted that the repair price was KRW 120 million (excluding value-added tax), and the Defendant asserted that the repair price was KRW 20 million (excluding value-added tax). The court determined that the repair price was KRW 120 million based on witness D’s testimony, etc.
B. On October 19, 2012, the Incheon District Court sentenced D’s final judgment of perjury to the witness D on the ground that “the Plaintiff testified to the Defendant on June 10, 2005 that he/she, including technical service costs of KRW 120,000,000,000, was sent by facsimile a written estimate containing KRW 1220,000,000,000,000, including technical service costs of KRW 100,000,000” and the Plaintiff testified to the Defendant by facsimile for eight months, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. The Defendant’s petition for retrial and the lower court’s judgment were grounds for retrial, and the judgment subject to retrial became final and conclusive as to perjury against witness D.