Relationship between a retrial suit and Article 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

"When the false statement of a witness has been proved" under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act or "when the document supporting evidence of the judgment has been forged" under Article 422 (1) 6 of the same Act shall be when the judgment of conviction or the judgment of the fine for negligence has become final and conclusive or when the final judgment of conviction or the fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than the defects of evidence.

Articles 422(1) and 422(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-Appellee-appellant-Appellee

Central Development Co., Ltd. (Attorney Ansan-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Yellow dust class;

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na17 delivered on September 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant (the plaintiff on review) are examined.

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is one of the grounds for retrial, "when the false statement of a witness was proved by evidence of the judgment, or when the document of the judgment under Article 422 (1) 6 of the same Article, which is the evidence of the judgment, is forged" means when the judgment of conviction or the judgment of a fine for negligence is finalized, or when the final judgment of conviction or the final judgment of a fine for negligence cannot be rendered for reasons other than the defect of evidence, is evident pursuant to the provisions of Article 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act. In light of the records, the court below's dismissal of the defendant's lawsuit for retrial is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below, since there is no assertion as to the fact that the false statement or the evidence under Article 422 (1) 11 of the Civil Procedure Act, which is one of the grounds for retrial, constitutes a case where the final judgment or the final judgment of a fine for negligence cannot be made due to the lack of

This paper is without merit because it was returned to the attack of the lower court's whole right to the preparation of evidence and fact-finding.

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

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)