Whether there is a ground for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act where a witness’s false statement is adopted as evidence and is not written in the written judgment (negative)

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when a false statement of a witness, etc. has been proved" refers to the case where it is stated in the written judgment as materials for fact-finding that affect the order of judgment. Thus, even if a false statement of a witness, etc. had not been made, if such false statement is adopted as evidence and it was not entered in the written judgment, it does not constitute grounds for retrial.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1818 delivered on October 22, 1968 delivered on August 22, 1968, 74Da1643 delivered on August 22, 1975

Attorney Lee Jong-ok et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Hong-young et al. and one other

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 80Na1 delivered on April 15, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

In this case, the value of the subject matter of lawsuit is 136,800 won, which is the small amount of claim as provided by Article 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the small amount of claim cannot be lodged by permission under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the application for permission of this case shall be considered as an appeal under the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the grounds for applying for permission

1. "When a false statement of a witness, appraiser, interpreter, or legal representative under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the grounds for retrial has been proven" refers to the case where the evidence of fact-finding that affects the order of the judgment is stated in the written judgment. Therefore, even if a false statement was made, the fact-finding does not affect the order of the judgment, or even if a witness's statement was false, it cannot be a ground for retrial, and it cannot be a direct evidence supporting the fact-finding, and the fact-finding materials that constitute an issue-finding should not be included in the case where a direct evidence supporting the fact-finding is established, and the issue-finding materials are not included in the case where an indirect evidence was not made, and there is a probability that the order of the judgment may vary, or in any case, it should be adopted as evidence and stated in the written judgment in any case (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da168488, Aug. 26, 196; 208Da169797, Aug. 16, 297, 197. 19687.

2. 그런데, 원심판결 이유 기재에 의하면 원심은, 거시증거를 종합하여, 전심 원고 박한균(원고 등의 피상속인)이 피고 등을 상대로 소유권이전등기말소청구 소송을 제기하여 서울지방법원 의정부지원 76가단266 , 서울민사지방법원 76나736 , 대법원 77다326 으로 원고 청구를 인용하는 판결이 확정된 사실, 위 재심대상 판결은 전심에 있어서의 제 2 심 증인 1, 2의 증언을 취신하여 제 1 심 증인 김원산, 동 이동호, 제 2 심 증인 박용관, 등 박형배의 각 증언을 배척하고 나머지 증거들로는 피고 등 주장사실, 즉 피고 홍순영의 조부인 소외 망 홍희창이 소외 망 박성근으로부터 이 사건 부동산을 매수하여 소유권이전등기를 마친 바 있고, 피고 홍순영은 그의 아버지 소외 망 홍종현을 거쳐 이를 상속하였다는 사실을 인정하기에 부족하다 하여 원고의 청구를 인용한 사실, 증인 의 " 이 사건 계쟁토지는 원고가 상속한 재산으로 증인의 할아버지 때부터 증인에 이르기까지 삼대가 관리하여 왔으며 피고 홍순영이가 원고의 소식 두절과 의정부등 기소가 불타버린 것을 악용하여 이 토지를 자기 명의로 가로챘다" 는 취지의 증언 및 증인 2의 " 이 토지 관계로 홍순영이 녹음한 것을 박태봉이 들었다고 하는데 그 내용은 산을 반환해 준다는 것이라고 했고 의정부 군청에 있는 임야대장은 6 . 25사변 당시 소실되지 아니하고 보존 보관되어 있으며, 증인의 집안은 부자이고 양반으로서 증손이 선조가 묻힌 이 산을 판 일이 절대 없다" 는 취지의 증언부분이 각 위증으로 기소되어 서울지방법원 의정부지원 77고단698 , 서울형사지방법원 79노4178 , 대법원 79도3054호 유죄판결이 확정된 사실 등을 인정하고, 유죄판결이 확정된 증인 1, 2의 허위진술 부분이 재심대상 판결의기초가 된 사실인정의 증거로 되어 판결의 주문에 영향을 미쳤다고 할 것이니 재심대상 판결에는 민사소송법 제422조제 1 항 제 7 호 에 정한 재심사유가 있다고 판시하였다.

3. However, examining the reasoning of the judgment subject to review of this case (No. 9-2) on the other hand, the court below rejected the statement of the defendant et al. that stated that the defendant et al.'s testimony 1 and 2 testimony is insufficient as evidence to acknowledge the above assertion and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and since the witness et al. testimony 1 and 2 testimonys 1 and 1-2 of evidence No. 1-2 of evidence No. 1 of this case's testimonys 1-3 of this case's testimonys 1-2 of this case's testimonys 1-2 of this case's testimonys 1-2 of this case's testimonys 1-2 of this case's testimonys 1-2 of this case's testimonys 1-2 of this case's assertion as evidence or indirect evidence, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the issue as evidence, it does not constitute grounds for retrial since it does not constitute grounds for retrial of this case's new appeal 2-1-2 of this case's ruling.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)