Article 422 (Grounds for Retrial) (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act means "when the false statement of a witness has been proved by evidence"

Article 422 (Grounds for Retrial) (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the false statement of a witness is proved by evidence" means that the false statement is provided as a material for fact-finding on the grounds of the text of the judgment, but in this case, it includes all cases when the false statement is directly or indirectly affected by the case when the false statement becomes a material for fact-finding on the grounds of the text of the judgment, and it includes not only the case where the false statement becomes a material for fact-finding on the grounds of the text of the judgment, but also it is probable that a judgment different from the judgment in question would have been rendered if the false statement was not taken into account.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da895 Decided August 26, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 74Da1643 Decided July 22, 1975

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 5 others, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Freeboard of gender

Gwangju District Court Decision 83Na3 delivered on January 10, 1984

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purport of Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when a witness's false statement has been admitted as evidence for the judgment", which is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the same Act, is that the false statement is provided as materials for fact-finding on the ground of the text of the judgment, but in this case, it includes all cases where the false statement was provided as materials for fact-finding, including cases where the false statement was directly or indirectly affected by a direct evidence, and it also includes cases where it is probable that a judgment different from the judgment in question would have been rendered if the false statement was not taken into account (see Supreme Court Decisions 69Da895 delivered on August 26, 1969 and Supreme Court Decision 74Da1643 delivered on July 22, 1975).

2. The court below's testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was punished for perjury, was cited as a family and additionally in the judgment subject to retrial, and it is not expected that the conclusion of the judgment subject to retrial would change even without the testimony. Thus, this cannot be a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the plaintiffs' request for retrial of this case is dismissed on the ground that there is no ground for retrial.

3. However, according to the records, the plaintiff (the plaintiff) submitted several evidences to prove the completion of the prescriptive acquisition due to possession of the forest of this case in a lawsuit subject to review. According to the testimony of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 at issue, the decision subject to review rejected all the evidence consistent with the plaintiffs' assertion on the ground that according to the witness's testimony at issue, it can be recognized that the defendant (the defendant) occupied the forest of this case. The non-party 1's witness and his father managed the forest of this case from 1951 to 1978 as the defendant's manager, and the plaintiff's side managed the forest of this case only after 1975, and the non-party 2's testimony was found to have been proved to have been managed the forest of this case by the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 until 1978, and the defendant's testimony at this time was confirmed to have not been admitted as evidence of the summary order of this case's judgment (the non-party 1's testimony of this case was confirmed 2981 and the non-party 2885's testimony).

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below, contrary to this opinion, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the grounds for retrial, and this constitutes the grounds for reversal of the judgment below, and the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)