The case holding that a ground for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act constitutes a ground for retrial

If the false statement part of a witness who was convicted of perjury was adopted as evidence of fact-finding that forms the basis of a civil judgment, and indirectly affected the text of the judgment, it constitutes grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 422 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da1818 delivered on October 22, 1968 (Case Card 7048, Decision No. 422(66) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision No. 422(66)

Plaintiff

Defendant clans

Daegu High Court (74Na573)

The defendant (Plaintiffs for review)'s appeal is dismissed.

The litigation costs for retrial shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment subject to review shall be revoked.

The plaintiff (the defendant)'s claim is dismissed.

Costs of litigation in the principal lawsuit and retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial).

1. Determination on the grounds for retrial

According to the records of the case such as the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 1 and non-party 7's non-party 4's non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 7's non-party 3's non-party 1 and non-party 2's non-party 3'7'

Thus, the part of the above false statement made by the non-party 1 of the above witness, for which the judgment of conviction was affirmed as evidence of fact-finding, which indirectly served as the basis of the judgment, shall be deemed to have influenced the text of the judgment. Thus, there is a ground for retrial as stipulated in Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to whether the judgment subject to a retrial is justifiable

(1) Except for the above portion of non-party 1's testimony of non-party 2, non-party 1's testimony, non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1'

(2) Since the above two parcels of forest land were originally owned by the Defendant and entrusted the title of ownership in the forest register to Nonparty 2, the Defendant’s assertion that the title of ownership in the forest register was entrusted to Nonparty 2. Thus, even if the registration of the name of the Defendant clan was erroneous in the process of its execution, it is still consistent with the substantive rights. However, there is no evidence to support that the above two parcels of forest land were trusted to Nonparty 2 as the Defendant clan ownership, and there is no evidence to support that the above two parcels of forest land were trusted to Nonparty 2 as the Defendant clan ownership.

(3) Thus, since the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant with respect to the above two parcels of forest land is invalid without any ground, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure of registration of cancellation against the non-party 2's property heir, and the non-party 1, etc., who is the property heir of the non-party 2, is obligated to perform the procedure of registration of cancellation as to the above two parcels of forest land. Thus, the plaintiff can exercise the right to exercise the right to exercise the cancellation registration procedure against the defendant non-party 1 in order to preserve the right to claim the performance of the registration procedure. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified. Accordingly, the judgment for retrial is justified even if the above ground for retrial exists, and the defendant's lawsuit for retrial is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit for retrial are assessed against the defendant who has lost.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge) Kim Hun-Un