The meaning of the witness's false statement under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (Grounds for Retrial) is proved by evidence of judgment.

When the false statement of a witness under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act is a evidence of a judgment, the term "when the witness makes a false statement in a court which directly examines the litigation case in which the witness directly becomes the object of a retrial" means the case where the false statement becomes a evidence for fact-finding which became the basis of the text of the judgment, and the case where the witness makes a false statement as a witness in a case other than the litigation case (civil and criminal cases) in which the witness becomes the object of a retrial and submitted a document stating such statement as a documentary evidence in the judgment subject to retrial cannot be included in the grounds for retrial under subparagraph 7 above.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1203 Delivered on September 20, 1966, 67Da260 Delivered on May 16, 1967, and 80Da642 Delivered on November 11, 1980

Plaintiff 1 and 7 others

Defendant 1 and 17 others

Supreme Court Decision 83Da574 Delivered on March 27, 1984

The retrial lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

The request for retrial shall be examined.

When the false statement of a witness under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act becomes evidence of the judgment, the term "when the witness makes a false statement in the court which directly examines the case subject to a retrial" means the case where the false statement becomes evidence of fact-finding which became the ground for the order of judgment, and the witness makes a false statement as a witness in the case other than the case (civil and criminal cases) which became the ground for retrial, and the case where the statement stating the statement is submitted and employed as a documentary evidence in the judgment subject to retrial cannot be included in the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7. It is the case of the party member (Article 66Da1203 delivered on September 20, 196; Article 67Da260 delivered on May 16, 1967; Article 80Da642 delivered on Nov. 11, 1980; Article 47 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the witness's testimony of the above case subject to retrial cannot be included in the grounds for retrial under Article 75 of the judgment prior to retrial.

Therefore, in this case, the purport of the judgment that does not constitute a ground for retrial is to change the above precedents, and the organization of a four panel that does not constitute a ground for retrial under Article 7 of the Court Organization Act, which requires a change of precedents, is without merit. Therefore, this lawsuit is dismissed, and the costs of retrial are assessed against the losing party and is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)