A. The meaning of “when the false statement of a witness becomes evidence of a judgment” as a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is a violation of the rules of evidence by determining otherwise, even though it is probable that the text of the judgment may vary if the witness did not make a false statement.

A. The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the false statement of a witness becomes evidence of the judgment” refers to the case where the false statement is provided as fact-finding data affecting the text of the judgment. If there is a possibility that if the false statement had not been made, the text of the judgment may vary. In this case, the fact-finding data was provided as a fact-finding data, and all cases include cases where the false statement was directly or indirectly affected by the time of direct evidence.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there is an error in the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence by determining otherwise, even though it is probable that if there was no witness's false statement, the text of the judgment would change if there would be no witness's false statement.

(a)Article 422(1)7/B. Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2425 delivered on March 14, 1989 (Gong1989,595) (Gong1991,1047 delivered on February 22, 1991) 91Da10107 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 226), Supreme Court Decision 91Da28764 delivered on January 21, 192

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Re-Defendant) 1 and 21 others

Seoul High Court Decision 90Rena28 delivered on December 19, 1990

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even though non-party 1, who was admitted as evidence in the judgment subject to a retrial, was convicted of perjury, the court below acknowledged the judgment subject to a retrial by comprehensively taking account of the whole purport of the pleading on the witness non-party 1's testimony except evidence No. 3-1, and evidence No. 2, which was cited by the judgment subject to a retrial, and the witness non-party 1's testimony prior to a retrial and false statement recognized as guilty, i.e., the land in this case is owned by the Dong, where ○○ (hereinafter referred to as "○○") located in the Goyang-gun, Goyang-gun, and the above non-party 1 et al. owned the land in this case's name, and was similar to the above ○○○○, which was inevitably raised on Oct. 5, 1893, and whose permanent domicile was established and whose address was 3 omitted), and thus, rejected the above non-party 1's statement on the land in this case's non-party 2.

When a witness’s false statement, which is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, is a evidence of the judgment, refers to the case where the false statement is provided as a material for fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment. If there is no such false statement, it is probable that the text of the judgment would change if it would not have any such false statement. In this case, the fact-finding material was provided as a material for fact-finding, which includes all cases when the false statement was directly or indirectly affected by this case.

Examining the remaining evidence other than the testimony of the above witness 1, among the evidences of this case, the court below found that the above non-party 2 sold the land of this case to the plaintiff (Evidence 1 through 8, 23, and 28 of Evidence A), or that the land of this case is owned by ○○○○ (Evidence 3-1, Evidence 11-1, 2) or the judgment that confirmed that the land of this case was owned by ○○○○○, and the land of this case (No. 3-1, Evidence 11-2) or the judgment that confirmed that 648 square meters away from the above land of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 18-1, 2) or documents (No. 30-2, 304) favorable to the plaintiff, and that the above part of the court below found that the non-party 1 was not guilty of the above non-party 2's testimony as well as the above part of the evidence that the non-party 1 was found guilty.

In the instant case, inasmuch as Nonparty 1 was convicted of perjury, it is probable that the text of the judgment would change if the false statement had not been made, and thus, the text of the judgment would be subject to grounds for retrial. However, the lower court’s judgment that made a different judgment is ultimately erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to grounds for retrial, or by misunderstanding facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)