The meaning of "when the false statement of a witness has been proven as evidence" as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the false statement of a witness has been proved," the witness's false statement is not directly employed as a material for fact-finding that served as the reason for the order of judgment, but it also includes the case where the fact-finding that served as the reason for the order of judgment has an indirect impact on the fact-finding that is the reason for the order

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 76Da1690 decided Oct. 26, 1976; 4292 Guide879 decided Aug. 18, 1960 (No. 6943; 1014 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court (Law Firm 72Na800 delivered on September 27, 1973)

Busan District Court (72 Gohap63)

The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s appeal for retrial is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The decision rendered by the Daegu High Court on September 27, 1973 with respect to a case involving the surrendering 72 or 800 houses shall be revoked.

The appeal by the defendant (the defendant for retrial) shall be dismissed. All costs of the principal lawsuit and retrial shall be borne by the defendant (the defendant for retrial).

The defendant (the defendant) shall order the plaintiff (the plaintiff) (the re-appellant) to write down 2,63 pbbebbebbebbebbebbebbebbes(Ga) 2, 9 and 339 p.m. (Ma) 2, 14 p.m. (Ga) 2, 14 p.m. 14 p.m., 14 p. 14 p.m., 14 p.m., 14 p. 14 p.m., 3 p.m., 14 p.m., 14 p.m., 14 p.m., 14 p.m., 3 p.m.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (the plaintiff)'s claim is dismissed.

The litigation costs shall be borne by all of the first and second instances of trial by the plaintiff (the plaintiff for review).

According to the records of this case, the plaintiff (the plaintiff's title simply hereinafter "the plaintiff") was sentenced to a favorable judgment on October 5, 1972 against the defendant (the defendant merely hereinafter "the defendant) after filing a lawsuit against the defendant 72 Gohap63 house name lawsuit, but was sentenced to a favorable judgment on September 27, 1973 by the defendant's appeal, "the decision of the court of first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed." This decision is clearly confirmed as the Supreme Court Decision 73Da1647 delivered on December 11, 1973. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below 7 Da72Na80 delivered on the non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 4's testimony, which is non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's testimony and the non-party 5's testimony are rejected for each of the plaintiff's testimony and the non-party 1's testimony.

Therefore, the judgment subject to a retrial has indirectly affected the recognition of facts, which are the grounds of the judgment, by admitting the false statement of Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 6, consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion on the instant case. Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “when the false statement of a witness is proved as grounds for a retrial” means that the witness’s false statement is not directly employed as the materials for fact-finding that constitute the grounds of the judgment, but includes cases where the witness’s false statement is indirectly affected as in this case. Thus, the judgment subject to a retrial contains grounds for retrial falling under Article 422(1)7 of the same Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above building was owned by the plaintiff on March 1970. The plaintiff's plaintiff's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony that the non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's testimony are not accepted.

As seen above, even if the witness of the trial who rejected evidence consistent with the plaintiff's assertion was excluded from the false statement, there is no evidence to prove that the building was owned by the plaintiff. Thus, the decision for retrial that rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case on the premise that the building was owned by the plaintiff is eventually justifiable. Since the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is unfair, it is dismissed, and the costs of the retrial are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)