A. The meaning of “when the false statement of a witness becomes evidence of a judgment” as a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. In order to determine whether a false statement of a witness, which became final and conclusive due to a perjury, constitutes grounds for retrial as stipulated in Paragraph A of the above Article, whether the evidence examined in the retrial lawsuit should be considered as a whole (affirmative)

A. The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the false statement of a witness becomes evidence of the judgment” refers to cases where the false statement is provided as evidence of fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment. If there is a probable probability that the text of the judgment would vary if the false statement had not been made. Thus, if the remaining evidence except the false statement does not affect the text of the judgment even by the remaining evidence, it does not constitute grounds for retrial even if the false statement was rendered guilty with perjury.

B. In order to determine whether false statements constitute grounds for retrial under the above Paragraph (a) where a witness who testified in a final and conclusive judgment subject to retrial was found guilty of perjury, the evidence cited in the final and conclusive judgment prior to the retrial and each evidence examined in the retrial lawsuit shall also be considered as materials for the determination.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu356 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1235) (Gong1991, 1047) 91Da10107 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 226)/B. Supreme Court Decision 80Da915 delivered on September 9, 1980 (Gong1980, 13164)

Attorney Lee Byung-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 90Rena271 delivered on September 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

(1) Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the same Act, “when a false statement of a witness becomes evidence of the judgment” refers to cases where the false statement is provided as evidence of fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment. If there is a probable probability that if the false statement had not been made, the text of the judgment may vary. Thus, if the remaining evidence except the false statement does not affect the text of the judgment even by the remaining evidence, it does not constitute a ground for retrial even if the false statement was made guilty due to perjury (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu356, Jun. 23, 1987; 89Meu24247, Feb. 22, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer of ownership registered in the future by the defendant, etc., on the real estate of this case, was actively involved in the act of breach of trust against the plaintiff of Kim Sung-ho by taking advantage of his status as a high-class officer in active duty service and threatening him to commit acts in violation of trust against the plaintiff of Kim Sung-ho, while the defendant et al. know well about the land transaction relation between the plaintiff and Kim Sung-ho, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant of this case was legitimate for compensation for damages against the plaintiff of the plaintiff Kim Jong-sung, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that there was no evidence to acknowledge the transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant of this case. It is recognized that the testimony in the name of the defendant of this case was adopted as one of the comprehensive evidence concerning the recognition of the opposing fact, but it cannot be deemed that the part of the testimony which became guilty was directly or indirectly related to the fact that the judgment subject to a retrial was found to be a new trial.

Although the above determination by the court below is somewhat unclear in its expression, the whole purport of the judgment does not affect the text of the judgment subject to a retrial, and even if there was no false testimony in light of the records, it is recognized that the remaining evidence cited in the judgment subject to a retrial does not affect the text of the judgment subject to a retrial in comparison with each of the evidence examined in the judgment subject to a retrial lawsuit in this case. Therefore, even if the statement made in the judgment subject to a retrial was final and conclusive by perjury, it does not constitute grounds for a retrial, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the grounds for a retrial. The argument is groundless

(2) In a case where a witness who made a testimony adopted in the final and conclusive judgment which was subject to a retrial is found guilty of perjury, the court shall consider the evidence cited in the final and conclusive judgment before the retrial to determine whether the witness's testimony does not affect the result of the final and conclusive judgment even if excluding the testimony of the above witness, and shall consider the evidence examined in the retrial lawsuit as a whole together with the evidence cited in the final and conclusive judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da915, Sept. 9, 80). However, the adoption of evidence is not only the exclusive authority of the presiding judge of the fact-finding court, but it is clear that the adoption of evidence does not affect the order of the judgment, and there is no other evidence that does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and since the court of original judgment did not accept an application for market price appraisal of the plaintiff's attorney's assertion and did not provide the opportunity to prove it continuously, this paper is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)