Whether the document and other articles supporting the grounds for a retrial include the case of preparing a false official document “when forged or altered”

"Forgery or alteration" in the documents and other articles, which have been proved by Article 422 (1) 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, includes the preparation of false public documents which can be punished, and in this case, there is a ground for retrial only when a judgment of conviction has become final and conclusive under Article 422 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction cannot be rendered for reasons other than the defect of evidence.

Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Neglected Oil Company

Attorney Park Jong-il, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the deceased non-party non-party 1 and six others

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 79Na11 delivered on January 28, 1981

Seoul Central District Court Order 78Ra197 Dated May 11, 1979

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the debtor.

The grounds of appeal by the debtor's attorney are examined as follows (the supplementary grounds of appeal by the debtor 1, which were submitted after the submission period and the supplement of the above grounds of appeal by the defendant 1).

With respect to Section 1:

Article 431 and Article 422(1)6 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a retrial may be filed against the ruling of quasi-adjudication which became final and conclusive when a document or any other article as evidence has been forged or altered. The above "Counterfeit or alteration" includes the preparation of false public document which can be punished for criminal punishment. However, in the above case, it becomes a ground for retrial only when a judgment of conviction or a judgment of a fine for negligence has become final and conclusive, or when a final and conclusive judgment of conviction or a final and conclusive judgment cannot be rendered for reasons other than lack of evidence. Examining the records of this case, it is evident that there was no evidence suggesting the elements of the above Article 42(2) as to the written argument of the lawsuit that was prepared in falsity, and therefore, it is justifiable for the court below to dismiss the lawsuit of quasi-deliberation on the ground that it does not constitute a ground for retrial. It does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the pleading in the judgment below, but it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

With respect to heading 2, 3, and 4:

In short, the theory of the lawsuit is that the decision of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication of the adjudication was suspended

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)