The meaning of "when the judgment has been proved" under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

When the false statement of a witness under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act is proved by evidence of a judgment, it means the case where the false statement is adopted as evidence to recognize the fact that it has become the basis for maintaining the order of judgment, and is written in the written judgment.

Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da245,246 Decided May 21, 1968, 84Da13 Decided November 24, 1981, Supreme Court Decision 84Da17 Decided June 12, 1984

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Reexamination Plaintiff)

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na30 decided March 26, 1987

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

1. The term "when the false statement of a witness under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act is proved" means the case where the facts supporting the fact that the false statement was the basis for maintaining the order of judgment are adopted as evidence and is entered in the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68Da245, 246, May 21, 1968; 81Meu327, Nov. 24, 1981).

2. However, according to the facts established by the court below, the judgment of Seoul High Court 79Na2596, which was the judgment subject to a retrial by the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) against the defendant (the plaintiff, hereinafter the defendant), rejected documentary evidence and the witness's testimony that conforms to the facts of possession as to the defendant's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of the forest of this case, which was the judgment subject to a retrial. It was affected indirectly by the rejection of the evidence that the portion of testimony to the effect that the defendant's possession of the forest of this case by the non-party 1, the non-party 1, prior to the retrial, was an illegal possession due to the defect of the owner's management of the forest of this case, and the above false statement by the non-party 1, which was the judgment subject to a retrial, was rejected for reasons other than the lack of evidence

3. However, in light of the reasoning for the judgment subject to a retrial (No. 10-2), the evidence that the Defendant’s deceased non-party 2 occupied the forest of this case may not be a ground for retrial falling under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the judgment subject to a retrial, on the ground that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact except the testimony of Non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5, and non-party 6 of the court of first instance who was believed by the court of first instance before the retrial, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact, and it is obvious that the testimony of the above non-party 1 was adopted as evidence and there is no direct or indirect evidence to find facts. Thus, even if it is proved that the witness made a false statement at the fact-finding court and that it was affected by the judge’s conviction, it cannot be a ground for retrial falling under the above Article

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below, which made a different view, shall be erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for retrial. Therefore, the argument points out this point, without examining the remainder of the grounds for appeal by the appellant, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)