A. Grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act where the false statement of the witness was not submitted for fact-finding

B. The same false testimony is found guilty in a case other than the judgment subject to retrial, and the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the testimony of a witness has become evidence of a judgment" refers to the case where the false statement of a witness, etc. has an effect on the text of a judgment, and is specified in the written judgment, so unless the testimony of a witness convicted by perjury has been adopted as materials for fact-finding in the judgment subject to a retrial, it shall not be a ground for retrial.

B. Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a witness has become evidence of a judgment" refers to a case where a witness makes a false statement in a court which directly examines a case subject to review, and does not include cases where a witness makes a false statement in a case other than the above case and a document stating such statement has been submitted and employed as a documentary evidence in the judgment subject to review.

A. Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da1643 Decided July 22, 1975, Supreme Court Decision 81Da1203 Decided November 24, 1981; 66Da1203 Decided September 20, 1966; 67Da260 Decided May 16, 1967; 80Da642 Decided November 11, 1980

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant Lee Young-su, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 17 others

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na30 delivered on August 30, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the above false statement is provided as reference material for fact-finding. However, the above false statement was provided as reference material for fact-finding in this case, but it should be admitted as evidence and recorded in the judgment even in any case of indirect evidence, and it should be stated in the judgment. 69Da895 delivered on August 26, 1969; 74Da1643 delivered on July 22, 197; 81Da327 delivered on November 24, 1981. According to the reasoning of the court below, the non-party's testimony which was found guilty as reference material for fact-finding cannot be seen as being included in the non-party's testimony as reference material for fact-finding under Article 422 (1) 7 of the same Act. The non-party's testimony which was found as reference material for fact-finding in the judgment of the court below is not an error of law as stated in the non-party's new trial.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The purport of the Supreme Court Decision 63Da3 delivered on April 25, 1963, which points out the theory of the lawsuit, is that the grounds for a retrial on the ground of a conviction of a witness for a retrial exist in the Daegu High Court which rendered a judgment on the merits of the case, and it is evident that there is no jurisdiction over the party members. Accordingly, since the lawsuit for a retrial is unlawful in violation of exclusive jurisdiction, it shall not be dismissed. Thus, since the testimony of the above non-party is not admitted as evidence in the judgment of the court of second instance, it cannot be viewed as a ground for a retrial against the above judgment of the court of second instance, there is no error of law that makes a judgment contrary to the judgment of the court of second instance against the above party members

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 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 Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)