When the statute of limitations and grounds for retrial of documents are known.

It is reasonable to have known that the evidence had been forged at the time of pleading of the first instance court in a lawsuit where a final and conclusive judgment was rendered, and that if the statute of limitations had already been completed, it would not be possible to make a final and conclusive judgment of conviction for reasons other than lack of evidence, it is inappropriate to file a lawsuit for retrial after the lapse of 30 days from the time when the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive.

Article 462 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1893 decided Nov. 26, 1968; 65Da553 decided Jan. 17, 1968

Korea

Defendant 1 and six others

Daegu High Court Decision 68Na4 delivered on December 4, 1969

We reverse the original judgment.

The action for retrial shall be dismissed.

The total costs of the litigation for retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff for retrial.

With respect to Defendant (Defendant 1)’s ground of appeal No. 3-2:

According to the facts established by the original judgment, since the document in which the plaintiff (the plaintiff) asserted as a ground for retrial was forged, such as evidence Nos. 2 and other documents which served as evidence for the judgment that became the object of retrial is around 1956, the completion of the statute of limitations for such crime should be changed to 1963, and according to the records, the plaintiff (the plaintiff) asserts that the document No. 2 was forged at the time of the first instance court's pleading of Jan. 26, 1965, the Busan District Court, which was the first instance court's first instance court's judgment, that the document No. 2 had already known that it was forged at that time, and at that time, the statute of limitations for retrial had already been completed as mentioned above, it would be a considerable legal principle that the plaintiff (the plaintiff) had already known that it was impossible to make a final judgment of conviction for reasons other than lack of evidence, and that there was a new trial that had already been a new trial that had already been instituted after the expiration of the period of retrial (see Supreme Court's Decision 68Da16565, Nov. 16, 16, 1965, 1965, supra.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges pursuant to Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) the Red Net Sheet