If a cause for a retrial has been asserted by an appeal, or no assertion has been made, a retrial suit against a final judgment may not be instituted for the same reason.

If a cause for a retrial has been asserted by an appeal, or no assertion has been made, a retrial suit against a final judgment may not be instituted for the same reason.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Seoul High Court Decision 200Do1488 decided May 1, 200

An excursion ship (Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na5 delivered on February 1, 1968

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant (Re-Appellant) is examined.

The gist of the first instance judgment in the final appeal against the judgment of the appellate court prior to this case is that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 have forged documents required for the change in the right of the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the testimony that the above documents were genuinely established is that the original judgment prior to the retrial was determined by comprehensively taking account of relevant evidence, and that there was a sale or purchase between the original defendant as stated in the document was erroneous by misunderstanding of facts. This case's request for retrial is different from the purport of the second instance judgment on the ground that the document and other items proved to have been forged or altered by evidence under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, which stated that the original judgment was erroneous by misunderstanding that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles regarding the original judgment as to the facts that the documents were forged or altered, or that there was no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts that the original judgment had already been established by misunderstanding of the contents and the reasons for retrial as stated in the original judgment prior to this case's new trial. Thus, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the first instance judgment by misunderstanding of evidence or retrial.

The gist of the second claim is that the defendant presents a new obvious evidence supporting the previous argument that the document was forged in the original trial, and this does not merely mean the previous argument, and as long as the statement on the ground that the document in the original trial before the retrial was forged is different from the statement on the ground that the document in the original trial before the retrial was forged, it should be viewed as a new argument even if it had already been alleged in the ground for appeal against the original judgment before the retrial, but it is reasonable to dismiss the defendant's request for retrial on the original trial on the ground that the original judgment had already been asserted in the ground for appeal against the original judgment before the retrial is erroneous in interpreting the law without merit. However, as long as the document in the judgment is alleged to be forged, it cannot be viewed as a new argument by presenting one of the materials that can be admitted, and there is no difference in the fact that the document in the judgment is alleged to be forged. Accordingly, it cannot be said that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal interpretation with the ground for appeal against the original judgment before the retrial.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)