Whether a witness's false statement constitutes grounds for retrial under Articles 422 (1) 7 and 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act where the witness's false statement is not submitted for fact-finding.

Even if a witness makes a false statement at a fact-finding court and a judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive, or a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence, if the witness’s testimony is not considered as material to recognize the facts, it cannot be a ground for retrial.

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

Supreme Court Decision 83Da574 Decided March 27, 1984

Ethiode

Lee Jae-jin et al.

Supreme Court Decision 84Da13 Delivered on June 12, 1984

The request for retrial is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds for request for retrial shall be examined.

1. According to the statement in the petition of reexamination of this case, in addition to the judgment of 84-13 on party members subject to reexamination of this case, the purport of seeking revocation of each judgment of 78Da707, 78 company 14, 79 company 17, 80 company 80 company 29, 81 company 1, 82 company 82 company 8, 83 company 83 company 7 and 83 company 16 is clearly stated, but according to the records of this case, in all cases except the above 84 company 13 company excluding the above 84 company 84 company 13 company , it is evident that there was a judgment dismissing each lawsuit or a request for reexamination of this case from a party member at that time. Thus, it is impossible to again seek a retrial of this judgment. In this context, this decision is limited to

2. First, as to the issue concerning Article 422 (1) 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, which the plaintiff cited as a ground for retrial, it is apparent in the retrial petition that the judge, who participated in the above 84 G13 ruling, did not have committed a crime related to duties in connection with the case. Thus, there is no ground for retrial as referred to in subparagraph 4 of this case in this case, and it is evident that the above judgment for retrial does not include the witness's testimony as a material for fact-finding, and therefore, even if the witness makes a false statement at the fact-finding court and the judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence becomes final and conclusive or it is impossible to make a final and conclusive judgment of a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence due to reasons other than lack of evidence (at least there is no material to know such fact), this cannot be said to be a ground for retrial as to the above judgment for retrial, and according to the records, the above judgment for retrial cannot be said to be a ground for retrial of this case.

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 judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)