False Statement and Grounds for Retrial of Witness

Even though the testimony of the witness at the court below was made false and it became final and conclusive guilty, if the testimony of the witness at the court below was not admitted as evidence in the judgment subject to review, it cannot be viewed as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 422(1)7 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292Da879 delivered on August 18, 1960 (Supreme Court Decision 6943 delivered on August 18, 1960, Supreme Court Decision 422(9)1014 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Reopening Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 5 others

Daegu High Court (77Na708)

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the defendant in the main office).

The judgment subject to review and the original judgment (Seoul District Court Decision 76Gahap160 delivered on August 16, 197, and 76Gahap1160 delivered on August 16, 197) are revoked and the claims of the plaintiff in the original lawsuit are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant for retrial (the plaintiff in the main office).

On June 13, 1978, the judgment dismissing an appeal of a plaintiff on a new trial (the judgment dismissing an appeal of a plaintiff on a new trial) against a part of the original judgment against the plaintiff (the defendant in the main office, the subsequent defendant in the new trial, and the subsequent plaintiff in the new trial) is obvious in the records.

However, on July 2, 1976, the reason for the request for retrial by the plaintiff was that the plaintiff was sold to the non-party 1 30,000 won prior to the accident, and at the same time he was delivered to him, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 took an oath as a witness at the time of the accident after the plaintiff was taking an oath as a witness at the court of original judgment, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 made a false statement to the effect that the plaintiff occupied and operated the above vehicle. As such, although all of the above statements of the above persons were judged against the plaintiff, the non-party 1 was ordered to suspend indictment at the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, and the non-party 2 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 100,000, respectively. This constitutes the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, or it is clear that according to the judgment of the person responsible for the operation of the above vehicle, it is not admitted as evidence.

Thus, the grounds for the plaintiff's assertion of the retrial cannot be deemed to constitute grounds for retrial under the above provision of the law. Therefore, since the lawsuit of the retrial of this case constitutes a case where there is no grounds for retrial, it shall be dismissed without any need to examine the remaining points, and the costs of the retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff of the retrial, and so it is so

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines