When the meaning of "when the false statement of a witness becomes evidence of judgment", which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and when the false statement has been used as prepared evidence.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the false statement of a witness becomes a evidence of the judgment" refers to the case where it is provided as evidence of fact-finding which is the basis of the text of the judgment, and in this context, it includes the case where the false statement is provided as evidence of fact-finding, not only when it has been directly produced but also indirectly affected by being used as evidence of other evidence.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Man class metal

Attorney Lee Sang-ok et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Jinna98 delivered on June 13, 1990

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The court below's finding that provisional registration for the preservation of the defendants' right to claim transfer of ownership in the name of Go Chuncheon with respect to shares 221/774 among the land of this case is null and void by the plaintiff's transfer certificate is not acceptable. There is no violation of the rules of evidence, inconsistency with the reasons, or lack of reasons, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it is groundless

2. As to the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the testimony of a witness becomes a evidence of the judgment" refers to the case where the false testimony of a witness is provided as evidence of fact-finding which is the basis of the text of the judgment, and in this context, the materials of fact-finding are provided as evidence of fact-finding, which includes the case where the false statement is used as evidence for preparation of other evidences (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu13803, Nov. 28, 1989) and indirectly affects it (see Supreme Court Decision 89Da13803, Nov. 28, 1989). Thus, the court below's rejection of the evidence corresponding to the plaintiff's assertion as to this case's false statement of the witness of the court below is a fact-finding on the ground that the witness's testimony of the court below is a false statement, and it is justifiable to recognize that the original decision was a ground for retrial, and it has an indirect impact on the fact-finding which is the basis of the text of the judgment.

In addition, the court below's decision that the registration of ownership transfer of the building of this case in the name of Chuncheon based on macroficial evidence is invalid without any ground, and therefore, it is acceptable to acknowledge the provisional registration of the name of the defendants as also the registration of invalidity of cause. There is no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the order of reason, as alleged by the theory

3. Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)