A final and conclusive judgment of perjury and the existence of grounds for retrial against testimony not adopted as data for fact-finding (negative)

If the witness's testimony is not a reference for fact-finding in the judgment subject to review, it cannot be considered a ground for retrial even if the witness makes a false statement at a fact-finding court and the judgment of conviction or fine for negligence is final and conclusive, or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or fine for negligence cannot be made for reasons other than lack of evidence.

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

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1271 Decided September 17, 1970, 68Da245,246 Decided May 21, 1968

Plaintiff (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Defendant (Re-Defendant) 1 and 3 others

Supreme Court Decision 83Da16 Delivered on February 28, 1984

The request for retrial is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. According to the statement in the petition of reexamination of this case, in addition to the judgment of the party members 83 Ga16, 78 707, 79 Ga14, 70 Ga17, 80 Ga17, 80 Ga29, 80 Ga29, 81 Ga1, 82 82 Ga8 and 83 7, it is evident that there was a judgment dismissing a lawsuit or a request for reexamination of this case from a party member by filing a lawsuit for reexamination of this case at that time, and therefore, it is not possible to seek a new trial of this case, which is limited to the above 83 Ga16, which is subject to a new trial.

2. First of all, as to the issue concerning Article 422 (1) 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is the ground for retrial, it is apparent in the retrial complaint that the judge involved in the above 83Ga16 ruling did not have committed any crime in connection with his duties. Thus, there is no ground for retrial as referred to in the above subparagraph 4 in this case, and it is apparent that there is no ground for retrial in the above judgment subject to retrial that the non-party witness's testimony was used as materials for fact-finding, and therefore, even if the witness's statement was made false at the fact-finding court and the judgment of conviction or fine for negligence became final and conclusive due to reasons other than lack of evidence ( there is no materials to know such facts), it cannot be said that there is a ground for retrial as to the above judgment subject to retrial.

In addition, according to the records, the above decision subject to review is clear that it has judged all the claims in the petition for review of the case, and there is no examination of the omission of judgment such as the theory of lawsuit. Therefore, the request for review of this case is groundless.

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

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)