Whether the statute of limitations for a retrial is legitimate in a case where the statute of limitations has expired in the absence of a complaint as to an act of internal defense as a ground for retrial without an investigation (negative)

Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a judgment shall become final and conclusive as a requirement for filing an action for retrial in principle. Accordingly, in a balanced manner, if an investigation on the possibility of conviction has not been initiated because the existence of a criminal act was not known even if the statute of limitations has expired but the criminal act was not even after being aware of the existence of such act, the lawsuit for

Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Han-1, Attorneys Park Dong-young and 48 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the deceased High Appellant ( Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 90Da5749 delivered on June 14, 1991

Busan District Court Decision 91Na6464 delivered on June 5, 1992

1. Each rejection of the instant lawsuit for retrial.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment subject to review shall be revoked.

The defendants (the defendants, hereinafter the defendants) shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on February 10, 1989 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) and deliver each of the above real estate.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The defendant (the deceased Associatewon) performed on February 10, 1989 the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "each real estate of this case") and delivered each real estate to the plaintiff on February 10, 1989.

1. Basic facts

On May 30, 1990, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the deceased deceased members of the defendant's deceased family court in Busan District Court for the registration of ownership transfer seeking the same judgment as the entries in the purport of the claim under the Busan District Court Order 90Kadan5749, but the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim on June 14, 1991. The plaintiff filed an appeal under the Busan District Court Order 91Na6464 on July 9, 199, but the above appellate court also rendered a judgment against the plaintiff who dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on June 5, 1992 (the judgment subject to the judgment in this case) and it is evident that the above judgment became final and conclusive on July 9 of the same year.

2. Whether the litigation for retrial of this case is legitimate

A. Grounds for the plaintiff's request for retrial

(1) The plaintiff is the cause for the first retrial of this case. The fact-finding certificate (Evidence B No. 1) adopted as evidence of the above judgment subject to a retrial among the testimony of a witness leapn, which was admitted as evidence of the judgment subject to a retrial, was prepared by the deceased leap, who is the husband of the above leapn. Each of the real estate of this case was purchased by the above lecomn, and cultivated it to the deceased lecomn, and the testimony that the deceased lecomnosis was distributed after the death of the above lecomn, is a false statement, and the statute of limitations for the above perjury has expired. Thus, the above judgment subject to a retrial cannot be tried for a final judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence for reasons other than the lack of evidence under Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is a ground for retrial falling under Article 422(

(2) The plaintiff is the second ground for the retrial of this case. The above confirmation statement adopted as evidence of the judgment subject to retrial was forged by stating false facts in the name of the above Godong, without the permission of Non-party Godong, and was authenticated by the notarial office with Non-party Go Dong-dong's father, and thus, the above judgment asserts that there is a ground for retrial falling under Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act ( although the plaintiff's assertion is unclear, the statute of limitations has expired or the above Godong was dead, it seems that the above ground for retrial constitutes a case where a final judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence cannot be tried due to reasons other than the lack of evidence under the latter part of Article 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act).

(b) Markets:

Therefore, according to Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, if the above facts were to be found as constituting grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)4 through 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above facts, and thus, it cannot be seen that there was a final judgment of conviction or a fine for negligence for reasons other than the defect in evidence. However, even if the above facts were to exist and it cannot be seen that there was a final judgment of conviction or a final judgment of a fine for negligence for reasons other than the above facts, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above facts, and thus, it is difficult to find that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the above facts were to be found as constituting grounds for retrial on the grounds that there were no errors in the final judgment, such as the death, mental or physical disability, or the expiration of the statute of limitations, and thus, it cannot be viewed that there was no evidence other than the final judgment, for reasons other than the above facts alleged in the final judgment.

C. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is all unlawful, so it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judges Yellow-type (Presiding Judge)