Whether documents, etc. used as evidence for judgment constitute grounds for retrial due to forgery or alteration

The judgment of a crime of reason, such as a document that has been forged or altered, or the judgment of a fine for negligence has become final, or it cannot be deemed that a final judgment of conviction or a final judgment of a fine for negligence cannot be made due to reasons other than lack of evidence.

Article 451 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Grounds for Retrial]

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport, purport of appeal and request for retrial

The judgment subject to a retrial and the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. On February 23, 2006, the attachment disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s claim against the highest, highest, ○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Kim Young-nam, and the Gangwon-do Rules shall be revoked.

1. Determination of the original judgment

According to the records, the following resignations can be recognized:

A. The Plaintiff failed to pay KRW 17,679,760 of the global income tax for the year 197, which was finalized through several revisions procedures.

B. On May 25, 1999, the defendant seized ○○○○-dong, Seoul, ○○○○-1 Seoul apartment, 2, 805 ("○○○-2, ○○ apartment, A. 611" as stated in the review decision) owned by the plaintiff, but it was erroneous that the plaintiff would completely pay the delinquent amount until February 10, 2006, and the above seizure was cancelled on January 10, 2006.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not pay the amount in arrears even until February 10, 2006. On February 23, 2006, the Defendant again issued the instant disposition that attached the rent claim against the ○○○○, the lessee of the building located in ○○○○○-3, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, ○○○○○-3, the Plaintiff owned.

D. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant disposition as Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2006Guhap36407, but the judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim was rendered on January 26, 2007, and the Plaintiff appealed as the court 2007Nu6542, but the judgment subject to a retrial that dismissed the appeal was rendered on August 22, 2007. In addition, the Plaintiff appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed as Supreme Court Decision 2007Du18390, Nov. 15, 2007, but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is, on November 15, 2007.

2. Whether a lawsuit for retrial is lawful;

A. As to the assertion on the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act

The plaintiff asserts that there was a ground for retrial under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the defendant, on May 25, 1999, seized ○○○○○○-2 ○○○○ apartment Adong 611, which was owned by the plaintiff, but revoked it on January 10, 2006, the judgment subject to retrial was erroneous on the basis of a written request for public sale agency, a notice of public sale, a notice of public auction, a notice of public auction, a written request for temporary suspension of public auction, a written request for suspension of public auction, a notice of cancellation of attachment, a notice of temporary suspension of public auction, and a review of the continuation of public auction on the temporary suspension of public auction.

A retrial may be instituted against a final and conclusive judgment if such judgment has been made, or documents and other items as evidence under Article 451 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act have been forged or altered. However, in such a case, a retrial may be instituted only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of imposition of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence.

However, even if examining the record, there is no evidence to deem that the above documents alleged by the Plaintiff to have been altered meet the requirements of Article 451(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the above reasons of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial.

B. As to the assertion on the grounds for a retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act

Although the plaintiff asserts that he omitted a judgment on important matters that may affect the judgment, it is unclear whether the judgment was omitted on certain matters.

In addition, in light of the proviso of Article 451 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, a lawsuit for a retrial cannot be filed against the judgment of the court of final appeal which became final and conclusive on the ground of appeal for which the judgment of the court of final appeal was rendered on the ground of appeal, and if the judgment of the court of final appeal was omitted, if the judgment of the court below was omitted, it can be known if the original copy of the judgment was served, and thus, barring any special circumstances, it could be asserted as the grounds for final appeal since it could be known that there was omission in the judgment at the time of receiving the original copy of the judgment of the court of final appeal, and it could be asserted as the grounds for final appeal. Unless there are special circumstances, a lawsuit for a retrial may not be brought. Thus, barring any special circumstances, the omission in judgment cannot be a legitimate ground for final appeal as to the judgment of the court of final appeal regardless of whether the plaintiff asserted omission in

Therefore, the above ground of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be a legitimate ground for retrial.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.