The meaning of the witness's false statement is proved by the judgment.

When a false statement of a witness, which is defined as a cause for a retrial, is not limited to the case where a witness's false statement is directly employed as a material of fact-finding based on the text of the judgment, but it also includes the case where it indirectly affects it.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1151 delivered on December 1, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 6106 delivered on November 1, 1964; Supreme Court Decision 12 ② ② ② citizen 189 delivered on June 1, 196; Decision Article 422(31)1016 of the Civil Procedure

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court (Law No. 75Na105 delivered on October 29, 1975)

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (74Gahap223)

The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s appeal for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision rendered by the Daegu High Court on October 29, 1975 with respect to the claim for ownership transfer registration shall be revoked.

The appeal by the defendant (the defendant in retrial) is dismissed.

All costs of the principal lawsuit and retrial shall be borne by the defendant (re-appellant).

1. Requests for central packaging;

The defendant (the defendant) will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on March 5, 1954, with respect to 31 in sequence, which connects the points of the "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", "A", and "A", among the 35th 1st 1st eth eth Doz.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

2. Preliminary claim;

The defendant (the defendant) shall execute on March 4, 1974 the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on March 4, 1974 with respect to 31 square meters of the above site to the plaintiff (the plaintiff for retrial) at the cost of the defendant (

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s claim is dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be borne by all of the first and second instances of trial by the plaintiff (the plaintiff for review).

The plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter simply referred to as the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit against the defendant (the defendant, the defendant, hereinafter simply referred to as the "the defendant, hereinafter the defendant's abbreviation) on the 35th grade of the 35th grade of the Masan-gun, Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Masan-223 on December 27, 1974 on the part of the 31st grade of the 35th grade of the 31st grade of the 35th grade of the Masan-gun, but the decision was rendered in favor of the defendant on October 27, 1974, but the defendant's appeal as the 75Na105 on October 29, 195 on the 75th of the Daegu High Court's 75Na105 on April 13, 1976 on which "the plaintiff's claim is dismissed."

First, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds for a retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the above final judgment, and the Plaintiff’s attorney’s testimony No. 4, each of the witnesses of No. 4 employed by the instant judgment subject to a retrial as evidence for fact-finding, was forged by the Defendant, and the said person was sentenced to a final judgment of conviction due to the fabrication of the above private document and the crime of uttering thereof, and thus, in the said judgment subject to a retrial adopted as evidence, there is a ground for a retrial under Article 422(1)6 of the said Act, but there is no dispute over the establishment, according to the evidence No. 7-2 of the evidence No. 7-2, each of the witnesses of No. 4,

Next, comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s arguments as to the grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the same Act, evidence Nos. 7-2 and evidence Nos. 8-2, which had been previously established, the Plaintiff purchased 31 square meters from the Defendant on Mar. 5, 1954, and even if he did not purchase snow, he rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for the transfer registration of ownership of the building site as of March 4, 1974, where the Plaintiff acquired by prescription of the building site as of March 4, 1974, and the decision for retrial is inconsistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion. In other words, the Plaintiff purchased only one column and one column of the room, which is the building on the ground other than the building site, and the witness of Nonparty 1, who was the first instance court, who had been employed as the fact-finding data that possession of the building site was in possession of the building site on the ground of falsity, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 17 July 19, 197.

Thus, the judgment subject to a retrial adopted the non-party 1's false statement prior to the retrial as materials for fact-finding, which are contrary to the plaintiff's argument on this case, thereby adversely affecting the fact-finding, which is the basis of the text of the judgment. The "when the false statement of a witness is proved" under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is defined as grounds for retrial, is not limited to the case where the witness's false statement is directly employed as materials for fact-finding, which is the basis of the text of the judgment, but also includes the case where it indirectly affects it. Thus, the judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial falling under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the principal claim is the principal claim and the plaintiff's attorney again purchased 31 square meters of the title of claim from the defendant on March 5, 1954 from the defendant on the 9th day of building construction on the ground and paid the price in full. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the above site is asserted that the defendant is seeking the execution of the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership on the above site. Thus, the plaintiff's purchase of the building on this site from the defendant's own time is the defendant's legal representative, but the plaintiff's testimony on this site is the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the witness before the retrial, and the non-party 4's testimony on the first instance trial witness before the trial, and the non-party 1's receipt on this ground is not believed to be a member, in light of the fact that the plaintiff's purchase of the title of claim No. 2, 34 and No. 12 on this case's ground, it is hard to accept the plaintiff's claim.

In light of the following facts: (a) although the Plaintiff purchased 31 square meters of the above site from the Defendant on May 4, 1954, the Plaintiff asserted that he would occupy the above site for a public performance with the intention to own it for 20 years from May 4, 1974; (b) the period of prescriptive acquisition for the Defendant would expire; (c) the entry of No. 1, which was earlier, and the result of the on-site inspection at the lower court; and (d) Nonparty 5’s appraisal by Nonparty 5, the Plaintiff could not be deemed to have purchased 31 square meters of the above site from May 4, 1954; (d) the Plaintiff continued to occupy the above site for 1, 1954, 1, 1, 31 square meters of the above site; and (e) the fact that the Plaintiff purchased 41 square meters of the above site from the Defendant’s building site for 5, 1, 1, 12, 3, and 6, without any dispute over the establishment of evidence No.

Thus, even if the non-party 1's false statement was excluded before the new trial, which is admitted as evidence by the original judgment, the plaintiff's claim for the main lawsuit is nothing more than a justifiable one, and thus, the original judgment dismissed is eventually justifiable. Since the plaintiff's lawsuit for new trial is without merit, it is dismissed, and the costs of new trial are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)