The meaning of "when the false statement of a witness was produced as evidence of a judgment" as a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when the false statement of a witness has been proved" includes cases where not only the witness's false statement became a evidence of fact-finding that became the basis of the text of judgment but also it is probable that the witness would have rendered a judgment different from the judgment in question if the false statement would not have been taken into account.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu289 Decided September 11, 1984

Attorney Lee Han-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Kim Jong-hae et al., the defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na8 delivered on October 24, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the plaintiff, the heir of the non-party Kim Jong-chul, had no ownership preservation and ownership transfer registration under the name of the state, or the above Kim Jong-mun, and that the plaintiff, the heir of the non-party Kim Jong-chul, had no ownership preservation and ownership transfer registration under the name of the State or the above Kim Jong-chul, and that the witness of the court of first instance testified around 14:00 on December 14, 1980 and the register of this case was destroyed at the time of 6.25 U.S. and it was against the law of the court of first instance to recognize that the plaintiff had no ownership preservation registration of the forest of this case had no ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant of this case, and that the witness of the court of second instance had no ownership registration under the name of the defendant of this case at the time of 6.25 U.S., and that the plaintiff had no ownership registration of the forest of this case at the time of 6.16.

The above measures of the court below are based on the opinion of the Supreme Court that "when the false statement of a witness was proved as evidence for the reasons for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act" includes not only the case where the false statement of a witness was the evidence for fact-finding which served as the reasons for the order of judgment, but also the case where it is probable that the judgment would have been different from the judgment in question if the false statement was not taken into account (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu289 delivered on September 11, 1984). Thus, there is no reason for discussing that the judgment of the court below interpreted Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act contrary to the Supreme Court precedents.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeon Soo-soo (Presiding Justice)