Whether the document forged or altered under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act includes the so-called intangible crime of a private document that does not constitute a criminal offense.

In the case of so-called "private document" which does not constitute a criminal offense, the private document does not constitute a forged or altered document when a document evidencing the judgment under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act has been forged or altered.

Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 231 of the Criminal Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Re-Defendant) 1 and one other

Defendant 2’s assistant intervenor’s attorney Park Jong-young

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na8 delivered on March 8, 1968

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 64Da4221 delivered on October 5, 1966

Seoul High Court Decision 68Na10 delivered on November 21, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Re-Appellant) are examined.

1. As to the second ground for appeal:

In the case of so-called in the case of a private document which does not constitute a criminal offense, the private document does not constitute a forged or altered document in which the evidence of the judgment under Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act was forged or altered. Thus, the court below affirmed the facts that the evidence of the judgment under Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act was all or part of the contents of the written indictment, and that it was a false fact, based on evidence, that it was a private document whose name of preparation is consistent with the facts, and the judgment that such a private document cannot be deemed to constitute a forged or altered document under the above provision of the Act is justified.

Among the forged or altered documents stipulated in the above provision of the law, it cannot be accepted as an independent opinion that includes private documents that do not constitute a crime under the Criminal Act.

2.For the first and third grounds below:

Even if there is a false statement among the statements made by the witness or oath party, so long as the false statement part is not evidence of the judgment subject to retrial, it does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the court below determined by evidence that there was a false statement in the course of a personal examination conducted by Defendant 2 at a trial subject to retrial. However, the above false statement part is not an evidence of fact-finding in the judgment subject to retrial as follows. In other words, the judgment subject to retrial of this case is justified in the court below's determination that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above part of the evidence which was contrary to the above facts-finding (i.e., the part concerning the claim for new trial) and the part concerning the real estate which was made by Defendant 2 from Defendant 1 (Defendant 2), since the ownership transfer registration was made between two parties, it is not made based on this reason, but on the premise that there was no error in the conclusion of the judgment below as to the above part concerning the facts-finding of the defendant 2's evidence.

In addition, even if the court below rejected the lawsuit for retrial in this case where it is obvious that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) of this case rejected the lawsuit for retrial, it cannot be asserted as the ground for reversal of the judgment below. All of the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. The 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 Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)