Article 422(1) proviso of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The parties have asserted by appeal or have asserted by appeal.”

"A party" in the proviso to paragraph (1) of this Article refers to the case in which the facts of paragraph (2) of this Article have been claimed in addition to the assertion that the witness made a false statement as to the grounds under paragraph (1) 7 of this Article.

The proviso of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Re-deliberation Plaintiff) (Attorney Shin-yang et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Re-Appellant) 1 and seven others (Attorney Ha Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 65Na1 delivered on September 29, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

According to the Supreme Court Decision 64Na46 delivered on the ground of appeal No. 1 of the defendants' agent's ground of appeal No. 1, which is the object of this case's review, the defendant's agent's testimony was based on the non-party 1's testimony in No. 3 as a whole, and acknowledged that the land of this case had been cultivated from the piracy to the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, as well as from the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, on the land of this case, the defendants rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the above non-party 1's testimony should be applied to the farmland Reform Act, and it is obvious that the above non-party 1's testimony had been cultivated on the premise that the above non-party 1's testimony was a perjury.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, as the court below has duly decided, the proviso of Article 422 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act stated that "the parties asserted the grounds for appeal by appeal" refers to the case where the facts of Article 422 (2) of the same Act are asserted in addition to the assertion that the witness made a false statement with respect to the grounds for appeal under Article 422 (1) 7 of the same Act. Accordingly, according to Article 422 (2) of the same Act, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have asserted the grounds for appeal that the non-party 1 made a false statement as the witness in the grounds for appeal, and only he is the case under restraint. As such, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have asserted the grounds for appeal under Article 422 (1) 7 and 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act by appeal after the lapse of the period for submitting a certified copy of the judgment to the Supreme Court, and therefore the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have asserted the grounds for appeal as an independent opinion.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, it is clear that the determination of evidence and fact-finding belong to the exclusive authority of the court below, and it is evident that each evidence cited by the court below can be recognized as a fact-finding such as health team and the prime edition. Therefore, it is not possible to be employed to criticize the fact-finding conducted lawfully by the court below on the premise of independent value judgment as to the circumstances within the evidence or custom which is not established by the court below, on the premise of custom which is not established by the court below.

The ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

However, inasmuch as the plaintiff revoked the confession, such as the original decision, and the court below acknowledged that the confession was due to a mistake contrary to the truth, based on the facts duly confirmed by the evidence, the permission of the court below to revoke the confession is a legitimate measure, and the original judgment is ex officio. The original judgment cannot be viewed as a mistake affecting the conclusion of the judgment after using the expression "..........", and it cannot be viewed as a mistake affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The grounds of appeal No. 5 are examined.

However, since a lawsuit for retrial is sought to revoke a final and conclusive judgment, i.e., to exclude res judicata, not only the parties to the lawsuit indicated in the final and conclusive judgment, but also the parties to the lawsuit who died after the closing of argument, so if there is a person who died of the parties after the final and conclusive judgment, the general successor is a party. In this case, there is no problem about the interruption of litigation procedures or succession, and the original judgment can also be seen as being indicated as the defendant, i.e., all co-inheritors who are general succession of the deceased non-party 2, the defendant, i.e., the defendant., the defendant, and the judgment against the deceased non-party 2 was final and conclusive because the lower court dismissed the defendants' appeal, and its effect on the co-inheritors

The grounds of appeal No. 6 are examined.

However, according to the records and the original judgment, it is obvious that the drawings attached to the original judgment result from the non-party 3's appraisal, and according to the above appraiser's appraisal report, it is clear that the electrical drawing is a flat plane, and it is clear that the base point is selected in accordance with the Road Act, the luminous line method is used to measure the port of navigation, and the location and point of the land portion cultivated by each of the new defendants in this case, and therefore, it cannot be said that the original judgment does not specify the disputed subject matter, and therefore, it is groundless to discuss it.

The grounds of appeal No. 7 are examined.

However, according to the original judgment, as long as the registration of the defendants' defense has been completed, the court below can presume that the defendant's defense has been duly neglected due to the authenticity of the defense, procedure, and cause. However, there is no evidence behind this presumption, and it is evident that the plaintiff can recognize that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the former owner before 30 years, and rejected it. The judgment is legitimate, and it cannot be adopted as an independent opinion.

The grounds of appeal No. 8 are examined.

However, in the case of seeking the delivery of land based on the land ownership, if there is a dispute between the parties as to the ownership which is the cause thereof, and it is necessary to immediately confirm the existence or existence thereof, the lawsuit for confirmation of ownership and the lawsuit for delivery of land can be brought together. In this case, as long as the Defendants dispute the ownership of the land in this case, it is reasonable for the court below to accept the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership, and it is not justified as an independent opinion.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with the above reasons and the principle of sharing the costs of lawsuit.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Park Mag-gu