Even if a lawsuit for retrial under the latter part of Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act is filed without waiting for a final judgment, it is sufficient that a final judgment of conviction has been rendered until the final judgment has been rendered.

If the date of pronouncement stated in the sentence is different from the date of pronouncement stated in the sentence report, the sentence shall be deemed to have been pronounced on the date of pronouncement stated in the sentence report.

Article 9 of the Family Trial Act, Article 13 of the Personnel Litigation Act, Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

Sexually Roster

Park Ho-ok

Seoul Family in the first instance, Seoul High Court Decision 715 delivered on February 22, 1972

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

As to the part concerning the latter part of Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act among the grounds for appeal by an appellant (appellant)

In the reasoning of the judgment, the applicant for a retrial asserts that the false statement made by a witness (name omitted) and an sworn respondent is evidence of the above trial and this constitutes a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, in order to bring a new trial due to such a ground, the court below determined that the defendant's assertion as to this ground is groundless, since it was limited to the time when the final judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence became final and conclusive on the false statement of the witness or the person who taken an oath under Article 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, or when the final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be rendered on the grounds other than lack of evidence.

However, in the above case, there is a final judgment of conviction even if a lawsuit for retrial was filed without waiting the final judgment of conviction, and there is a final judgment of conviction. According to the records of the first instance trial (the first instance court), the applicant for a retrial has issued a written submission of the result of the complaint in the case of this case and according to the notice of the reason for the institution of the indictment attached thereto, the above witness and the respondent for a retrial can be found to have issued a non-prosecution disposition on January 7, 1971 on the ground that there is no right to institute a prosecution due to the expiration of the statute of limitations on January 7, 1971. Thus, the court below should have deliberated on whether to submit it as evidence, and should have deliberated on whether the reason for the institution of a non-prosecution is a case where it is impossible to make a final judgment or a final judgment of a fine for negligence on the grounds other than lack of evidence under Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the court below's argument on this point has no merit.

Therefore, according to Article 13 of the Family Trial Act, Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet