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

(2) Whether the proof of the location office is the matter of ex officio examination

1. Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides "when the false statement of a witness is proved by evidence" means that the court has provided the fact-finding data on the grounds of which the judgment order is based, regardless of whether the false statement was admitted by or was admitted by other evidence.

2. Matters concerning the certification of the seat office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act are not the matters to be examined ex officio by the court, but the party’s attack and defense materials.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1151 delivered on December 1, 1964, 64Da1153 delivered on January 19, 1965, 76Da553 delivered on May 11, 1976, 78Da200 delivered on March 28, 1978, 64Da1260 delivered on January 19, 1965

Heung-nam et al., the above plaintiff creation officer, Cho Jae-ju, and Cho Jae-ju are minors, and the legal representative is the legal representative's guardian's spawn et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant.

Lee Jong-su et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na7 delivered on April 18, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Point 1.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a witness's false statement has been admitted as evidence for a retrial" as a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the same Act refers to the case where the witness's false statement was provided as evidence for fact-finding which serves as the ground for the text of the judgment, and it is sufficient that the court recognized the fact only by the false statement or recognized facts by combining other evidences (see Supreme Court Decisions 64Da1151, Dec. 1, 1964; 64Da1153, Jan. 19, 1965; 76Da553, May 11, 1976). Therefore, the court below's decision that the witness's false statement constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, such as the original statement, constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the same Act, is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the grounds for retrial.

Point 2.

Matters concerning the certification of the location government office under Article 19(2) of the Farmland Reform Act are not matters to be examined ex officio by the court, but merely those of the parties' attack and defense. (See Supreme Court Order 66Da2024 delivered on March 8, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 68Da2024 delivered on March 25, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 75Da2358 delivered on July 27, 1976, and Supreme Court Decision 78Da200 delivered on March 28, 1978). In addition, in a retrial, a new method of attack and defense can be submitted within the scope of objection against the original judgment based on the premise that there is a ground for retrial (see Supreme Court Decision 64Da1260 delivered on January 19, 1965). Thus, in a retrial proceeding, there is no assertion that the farmland government office's theory at the seat of the farmland, and there is no illegality in the misapprehension of the original judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jung-young (Presiding Justice)