The meaning of "when the false statement of a witness has been proved by evidence" under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

"When a false statement of a witness is proved" in Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act means the case where the false statement is provided as direct or indirect material of fact-finding which served as the reason for the order of judgment, and it is probable that the court has rendered a judgment different from the judgment if it did not take into account the false statement.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da895 Decided August 26, 1969, Supreme Court Decision 84Meu289 Decided September 11, 1984

Attorney Park Jae-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Kim Nam-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 85Na28 delivered on November 13, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (defendant).

1. We examine the ground of appeal No. 1 by the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial, the plaintiff's attorney).

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a false statement of a witness is proved" means a case where the false statement is provided as direct or indirect material for fact-finding which served as the reason for the order of judgment, and it is probable that the court rendered a judgment different from the judgment in question if it did not take into account the false statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 69Da895, Aug. 26, 1969; 84Meu289, Sept. 11, 1984).

Upon examining the reasoning of the instant judgment subject to a retrial, it is evident that the said witness’s testimony was proven that the Defendant (the Plaintiff, hereinafter the Defendant) did not possess possession of the instant forest by nature of title, by comprehensively taking account of the testimony of the witness of the lawsuit and the evidence different from the testimony of the witness of the lawsuit. Thus, it is evident that the said witness’s testimony was evidence affecting the conclusion of the judgment

However, if only the remaining evidence except the testimony of the above witness can be recognized as the above facts of the judgment, even if the testimony of the above witness was revealed as false statement, it does not affect the text of the judgment, and thus it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment. However, whether the remaining evidence alone can reach the same conclusion as the judgment subject to a retrial belongs to the matters of the judgment of the court of retrial. Thus, the court below, which has the remaining evidence except the witness's testimony, held that the above witness's perjury cannot reach the same conclusion as the judgment subject to a retrial, and held that the above witness's perjury constitutes a ground for a retrial. In light of the records, the above judgment below is acceptable, and therefore, it is groundless that the judgment

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the records, the court below recognized that the novel Nos. 7, 8, and 9 through 13-1, 2, and 14 of the evidence Nos. 7, 9 through 13 were the documents duly formed based on such evidences, and based on these evidences, it is reasonable to recognize the fact that the defendant Kim Chang-chul and the Signam Kim Hong purchased, around January 1939, the land before the subdivision of each real estate of this case from the Sighaecheon-do and the Signam-do Kim Hong-si acquired, and delivered, the woodland No. 63-2, 3 of the same Riri-ri, which is the land before the subdivision of each real estate of this case, and the forest land No. 63-2, 63-2, and 3 of the same Riri-ri, which was occupied and used after delivery. In light of the evidence cooking process, it cannot be found that there is no ground for appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)