In the case of making a document forgery or perjury as a ground for retrial, if a non-prosecution disposition was made on the grounds of ordinary amnesty or the expiration of statute of limitations, whether this fact alone can be a ground for retrial.

When claiming the forgery of documents or perjury as a ground for retrial, if a non-prosecution disposition was rendered on the ground that there is no right to institute a prosecution due to general amnesty or the expiration of the statute of limitations, only the fact that the indictment was not instituted is insufficient as a ground for retrial, and it is necessary to prove that the document forgery

Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Song-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Re-Defendant) 1 and four others, the deceased non-party 1 and the litigation taking over the lawsuit.

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na11 delivered on September 28, 1973

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of an appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff for retrial are examined.

In the event that the prosecutor filed a complaint against the person who forged or falsified the above documents or witnesses as evidence of the final and conclusive judgment, which is subject to retrial, and the prosecutor did not institute a non-prosecution disposition on the ground that there is no right to institute a public prosecution due to the general amnesty of bonds or the expiration of the statute of limitations, the fact that the plaintiff did not have the right to institute a public prosecution is insufficient as grounds for retrial, and further, the court below erred by holding that the document forgery or perjury was not possible due to reasons other than lack of evidence under Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it constitutes grounds for retrial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 65Da304, May 4, 1965; 64Da1885, Jun. 15, 1965; 66Da308, Apr. 19, 196). 200, the court below's reasoning that the above non-party 1's testimony or perjury should not be admitted as evidence.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)