The meaning of "when a false statement of a witness under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is proved by evidence of a judgment"

"When the false statement of a witness has been proved" as a ground for retrial refers to the case where it is probable that the false statement would have been different from the judgment in question if it would not have taken into account the false statement, as well as the materials for fact-finding which served as the ground for the text of the judgment.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292 civilianSang879 Delivered on August 18, 1960

Use Ginseng

Park Young-in Attorney Choi Byung-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na18 delivered on December 10, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when a witness's false statement has been proved as evidence" refers to cases where not only the false statement was the evidence of fact-finding that became the basis of the order of judgment, but also it is probable that if the false statement had not been taken into account, it would have rendered a judgment different from the judgment in question.

Party members (see Supreme Court Decision 4292Sang879 delivered on August 18, 1960).

Examining the reasoning for the judgment subject to a retrial based on the original judgment and the record, the said judgment and the court of first instance concluded a sales contract for the land and buildings as stated in its holding and agreed that the remaining amount after the Plaintiff and the Defendant paid the down payment and the intermediate payment shall be repaid with the documents required for ownership transfer registration, and concluded that the payment was not performed by the Plaintiff at the place where the payment was made, but the Defendant did not prepare the documents required for ownership transfer registration, and rejected the Defendant’s defense of cancellation of the sales contract on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the remaining amount on the ground that there was no payment by the Plaintiff, as long as the Defendant did not prepare for the performance of his own obligation, the Defendant’s declaration of intent to cancel the sales contract was null and void, and thereafter, the Defendant’s defense was dismissed on the ground that there was no payment by the Defendant on the ground that there was no payment by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the witness's false statement is not clear that it was a material for fact-finding as to the provision of the plaintiff's payment of the remaining amount among the grounds for the judgment subject to review, but even without considering the above false statement, in other words, even if there is no evidence to provide the plaintiff's payment of the remaining amount, as long as the defendant had not provided the registration required documents, as the judgment subject to review legally became final and conclusive, there is no room for a legitimate right of rescission to the effect that the defendant could not be omitted from the other party's delay of performance. As such, the judgment of the court below to the effect that there is no influence on the result of the decision subject to review rejecting the defendant's claim for rescission, and the decision of the

In order to determine whether testimony of a witness as evidence of the judgment has no effect on the conclusion of the judgment by other evidence except for testimony when the testimony becomes final and conclusive, it is like the theory of lawsuit that each evidence examined in the litigation in the retrial proceedings with other evidence quoted in the court prior to the retrial should be integrated. However, among the evidence investigated in the litigation in the retrial proceedings in this case, Eul evidence No. 6 is a protocol of examination of the first instance court, stating Non-party 1's false statement, and the record verification is not sufficient to affect the conclusion of the judgment subject to retrial that there was no provision of the defendant's identity's obligation on the ground that it could not affect the part of the fact of the judgment subject to retrial, and it is difficult to view that there was no provision of the defendant's obligation upon considering the witness's testimony or evidence No. 4 investigated in the litigation prior to the retrial proceedings, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the court below's decision has no effect on maintaining the above part of the litigation costs as a result of the appeal.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)