The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

We examine ex officio.

1. A party to a civil lawsuit cannot be the subject of perjury even if he/she testified and testified as a witness because he/she has no capacity to stand witness, and such a legal doctrine likewise applies to the representative of a legal entity that is a party to a civil lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do1168, Mar. 10, 198). 2. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case that the defendant was present at the date of pleading District Court 2006Da22050, Cheongju District Court 2006Da22050, which was raised by G against D (hereinafter “instant claim for indemnity”). The court below convicted him/her of the facts charged of this case that he/she proved it by making a false statement contrary to his/her memory after appearing as a witness on the date of pleading on December 5, 2007.

3. In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if the defendant testified as a representative of G Co., Ltd. who is a party to the claim for reimbursement of this case at the time of the above testimony, he cannot be the subject of perjury even if the defendant testified after being sworn as a witness of the claim for reimbursement of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the subject of perjury, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.