Whether there is a ground for retrial in a different case where the testimony of the same witness was made at the same time in two cases involving concurrent hearings, but the testimony was made during the serious case, whether there was a ground for retrial in another case finalized by perjury

When the court concurrently examines two cases related to one another while adopting a witness to the two cases, and at the same time testified to the same effect as the witness to the two cases, but the witness's perjury to any one of the two cases becomes final and conclusive as perjury, the witness's perjury can only be a ground for retrial and cannot be a ground for retrial in another case proceeding simultaneously with the other cases.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1435 Delivered on March 2, 1965

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Re-Appellant) 1 and 8 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Busan District Court Decision 79Da3 delivered on February 29, 1980

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below decided that the non-party appeared at the court No. 5 of May 13, 1977 at the same time as the plaintiff's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness's witness' 9797 days.

Thus, if the conviction of perjury against the non-party witness was finalized on June 13, 1978, and the defendant 3 confirmed it on July 12 of the same year, and thereafter the defendant filed a lawsuit for retrial as to this case on the 26th day of the same month for this reason, the defendant et al., at least known that there was a ground for retrial since July 26, 1978. Thus, the lawsuit for retrial of this case filed on July 11, 1979 after the said 30 days passed was filed after the lapse of 30 days, which is the peremptory term under Article 426(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, was dismissed.

In the event that the testimony on one of the two cases (the above 76Na495 in this case) has become final and conclusive as a perjury while the two cases related to each other were concurrently tried by the same court, the witness's perjury can only be a ground for retrial as to the two cases (the above 76Na495 in this case) and the other cases (the above 76Na499 in this case) proceeding simultaneously cannot be a ground for retrial (the above 76Na499 in this case) (the above 76Na490 delivered on May 16, 1967).

As such, Supreme Court Decision 64Da1435 Decided March 2, 1965, which is in conflict with this, has been discarded by this decision.

Therefore, even though the court below's final judgment on the above 76Na495 of the non-party witness's above 76Na495 became final and conclusive, this cannot be a ground for retrial against the above 76Na499 of the case, which is subject to retrial (the non-party witness's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's judgment on the above 76Da499 of the case will be a ground for retrial against the judgment subject to retrial). The court below held that the court below's final and conclusive judgment on the above 76Na495 of the non-party witness's non-party's above 76Na495 was a ground for retrial against the judgment subject to retrial, and held that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for retrial or the grounds for retrial due to incomplete deliberation, and therefore, the court below's appeal

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-su (Presiding Justice) Ha Young-gu (Presiding Justice) Hamk-Jon Kim Jong-tae, Kim Yong-tae, Kim Tae-tae, Kim Tae-tae, Kim Tae-tae, Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)

Han Jin-jin is unable to sign and seal by overseas business trip.