[1] The meaning of "when it conflicts with a final and conclusive judgment rendered before a judgment was rendered, which is a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act"

[2] The meaning of "when a final judgment of conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence" under Article 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act in a case where a witness's false statement was considered as evidence of the judgment as grounds for retrial"

[3] In a case where testimony concerning a case that a witness testified with the same content at the same time with respect to the two cases which have been concurrently tried becomes final and conclusive as a perjury, whether such ground may constitute a ground for retrial for another case (negative)

[1] The grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 10 of the Civil Procedure Act are established in order to coordinate conflicts between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the retrial, and "where the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment is in conflict with the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the retrial" means where the effect of the final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the retrial affects the parties to the judgment subject to retrial, and even if the final and conclusive judgment previously rendered relate to a case similar to the judgment subject to retrial and its contents, if

[2] In a case where the witness’s false statement under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed as evidence of the judgment, when it is impossible to render a final and conclusive judgment of conviction due to reasons other than lack of evidence (Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act). The term “when it was possible to render a final and conclusive judgment of conviction for perjury unless there were reasons other than the defect of evidence, such as death, amnesty, or expiration of statute of limitations.”

[3] In a case where two cases related to one another were adopted by the same court as a witness for the two cases, and the witness made the same testimony as to the two cases at the same time, and the witness's testimony for one of the two cases became final and conclusive as perjury, the witness's perjury is merely a ground for retrial for the two cases, and it cannot be a ground for retrial for the other cases where two cases related to one another are conducted simultaneously.

[1] Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 422(1)7 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da20510 decided Mar. 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1272), Supreme Court Decision 93Da300 decided Oct. 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3163), Supreme Court Decision 94Da383 decided Aug. 26, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2518) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 62Nu218 decided Feb. 7, 1963 (No 11-1, 48), Supreme Court Decision 85Da418 decided Nov. 26, 198 (Gong1986, 1193) / [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da383979 decided Nov. 11, 198; 197Da32979 decided Nov. 39, 197; 209Da193797 decided Nov. 19, 197

Suwon Bam Co., Ltd. (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 38 others, the taking over of the lawsuit of the deceased (Attorney Noh Tae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96ReNa102 delivered on June 27, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act are established in order to coordinate conflicts between res judicata of the judgment subject to retrial and res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment, and thus, “where a final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment is in conflict with a final and conclusive judgment rendered prior to the final and conclusive judgment becomes effective against the parties to the judgment subject to retrial, and even if a final and conclusive judgment prior to the final and conclusive judgment pertains to a case similar to the judgment subject to retrial and its contents, if the res judicata effect of the judgment does not affect the parties to the judgment, it does not constitute the grounds for retrial (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da383, Aug. 26, 1994; 90Da20510, Mar. 27,

According to the records, the final and conclusive judgment (Supreme Court Decision 94Da6055) alleged by the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) can be known to have become final and conclusive after the judgment subject to a retrial becomes final and conclusive. Thus, there is no ground for retrial falling under Article 422(1)10 of the Civil Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial. The judgment of the court below to this effect is justifiable, and there is no error

2. In a case where the witness’s false statement under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act is deemed as evidence of the judgment, when it is impossible to make a final and conclusive judgment of conviction for reasons other than lack of evidence (Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act) means the case where a judgment of conviction could have been rendered if the witness had not been made for reasons other than the defect of evidence (Article 85Da418, Nov. 26, 1985). The two cases related to one another were adopted by the same court as witness of the two cases at the same time, and the witness testified at the same time with respect to the two cases, and the testimony concerning one of the two cases became final and conclusive as above, the witness’s above evidence can only be a ground for retrial for the said case, and it cannot be a ground for retrial for another case where the other case was conducted simultaneously without any reasons such as death, amnesty, or expiration of the statute of limitations (Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen in the judgment of the court below, even if the non-party deceased, who testified the same kind of testimony as the personal examination in the judgment subject to a retrial, was convicted of perjury in the first and second instances after the judgment was rendered, and died during the final appeal, the above testimony cannot be deemed to constitute a case where it is impossible to make a final judgment of a fine for negligence on the false statement as a party due to the death of the non-party deceased under Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, who is separate from the above civil case where the above testimony was made, as seen in the judgment subject to a retrial, even though the non-party deceased was convicted of perjury in the first and second instances after the judgment was rendered, and died during the final appeal, the above testimony in the judgment subject to a retrial, which is a case separate from the

3. 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.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)