A. Whether the period allowed for retrial complies with the period allowed for retrial ought to be considered for each ground for retrial.

B. The starting point of counting the period of filing a lawsuit for retrial on the ground of a deviation from determination

C. The meaning of "when the false statement of a witness is admitted as evidence of a judgment" under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

D. In order to determine whether false statements of a witness constitute grounds for retrial under the above "C", whether the evidence examined in the retrial lawsuit should be integrated as evidence to determine whether the witness's false statements should be considered.

A. The grounds for a retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act constitute separate grounds for a retrial. As such, whether the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial complies with each of the above subparagraphs ought to be considered on the basis of the grounds for retrial under

B. If an original copy of a judgment is served to an attorney, barring any special circumstance, the party becomes aware of whether the original copy of the judgment was omitted at the time of being served with the original copy of the judgment, and thus, the existence of grounds for retrial was known. Therefore, if the judgment becomes final and conclusive thereafter, the period for filing a lawsuit for retrial on the grounds of the omission of judgment ought to be

C. The grounds for retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, “when the false statement of a witness becomes evidence of the judgment” refers to the case where the false statement is provided as fact-finding data affecting the text of the judgment. If there is a probable probability that if the false statement had not been made, the text of the judgment may vary. Thus, if only the remaining evidence except the false statement does not affect the text of the judgment, it does not constitute grounds for retrial even if the false statement was received a final judgment of conviction by perjury.

D. In order to determine whether the testimony of the above witness is not affected by the final and conclusive judgment even if the witness gives testimony adopted in the final and conclusive judgment subject to review is excluded from the testimony of the above witness, the evidence cited in the final and conclusive judgment prior to the retrial and each evidence examined in the retrial lawsuit shall also be considered as reference materials for the determination.

(a)Article 426(a) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 422(1)(b) of the same Act; Article 422(1)9(c) of the same Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Da290Da1990 Decided December 26, 1990 (Gong1991,609) (Gong1991,609) Decided December 26, 1990, Supreme Court Decision 90Da18470 Decided March 12, 1991 (Gong1991,1174) 91Da20913 Decided October 8, 1991 (Gong1991,2686), 91Da29057 Decided November 12, 1991 (Gong1992,107), 90Da12861 decided November 8, 1991 (Gong192,69, 192, 197Da196319, Dec. 16, 1997).

Han-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and five others

Gyeong-Gyeong

Gwangju District Court Decision 89ReNa26 delivered on June 25, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff (appellant).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the plaintiff (the plaintiff, hereinafter only referred to as the plaintiff) has neglected to render a judgment on important arguments that may affect the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the presumption of real estate ownership transfer registration and the registration that conforms to the substantial relationship, and thus has been subject to a retrial as one of the grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 9 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the court below did not render a judgment on the above grounds for a retrial.

However, the grounds for retrial under each subparagraph of Article 422(1) of the Civil Procedure Act constitute separate grounds for retrial. Thus, whether the period for filing a retrial complies with each of the grounds for retrial under each of the above subparagraphs should be considered as well (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da19, Dec. 26, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 82Da28, Dec. 28, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Da2, Dec. 28, 1982). Unless there are special circumstances, the parties knew of the existence of the grounds for retrial by becoming aware of whether the judgment was omitted at the time when the original judgment was served to the attorney, and if the judgment becomes final later, the period for filing a retrial on the grounds for evading the above judgment should be calculated from the date on which

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da20913 delivered on October 8, 1991)

According to the records, the original copy of the judgment subject to retrial was served on the attorney at the time of July 16, 1984, and the plaintiffs applied for a final appeal to the Supreme Court again, but on November 13, 1984, an application for a final appeal was dismissed and the judgment subject to a final judgment became final and conclusive as is. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed on March 18, 1989, much more than 30 days prior to the filing period for a new trial, the lawsuit of this case, which referred to as the grounds for a new trial, was established as the grounds for a new trial, cannot be dismissed as it was instituted after the filing period for a new trial expired, and thus, the grounds for a final judgment as to the above grounds for a new trial cannot be

On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the records of evidence No. 32-1 (Non-prosecution of the case record), the court below found that the defendant (only the defendant; hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") received a non-prosecution disposition on August 31, 1987 as to the above articles of evidence No. 1 (written receipt of report on the receipt of report on the origin of childbirth) from the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office on August 31, 1987. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant could receive a final judgment of conviction as a crime of forgery of evidence No. 1 without the expiration of the statute of limitations period. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the grounds for retrial.

On the third ground for appeal

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when the false statement of a witness becomes evidence of the judgment" refers to the case where the false statement is provided as fact-finding data affecting the order of judgment. If there is a possibility that if there was no false statement, the text of the judgment would change if there would be no such false statement. Thus, if the remaining evidence except the false statement does not affect the text of the judgment, even if the false statement was received a final judgment of conviction due to perjury, it does not constitute a ground for retrial, and even if the witness who made a testimony adopted at the final judgment subject to retrial becomes final and conclusive after conviction as above evidence, it does not constitute a ground for retrial. In order to determine whether the testimony of the witness is not affected by the final judgment even if the witness's testimony is excluded from the testimony of the final judgment subject to retrial, it shall be considered as evidence of the final judgment after considering each evidence examined in the retrial lawsuit along with the evidence cited at the previous final judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da12861 delivered on Nov. 8, 1991).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the entire forest of this case was owned by Nonparty 1, the original father of the Defendant, and that the entire forest of this case was sold to Nonparty 1 by specifying approximately 600 square meters, excluding the forest of this case, among the entire forest, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was effective in accordance with the substantive relationship. As such, Nonparty 1’s testimony was additionally adopted, and even if this was excluded, Nonparty 1’s false statement does not affect the order of the judgment subject to a retrial, and therefore, Nonparty 1’s final judgment on Nonparty 1 did not affect the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Even if the testimony of Nonparty 1 was excluded, it is not clear whether the court below, in determining whether there was no influence on the outcome of the judgment subject to a retrial, the evidence adopted before the retrial and each evidence investigated in the litigation of this case, was considered as materials for the judgment. However, in light of the records, even if there was no false testimony of Nonparty 1, which was affirmed as guilty, it can be known that there was no influence on the text of the judgment subject to a retrial in comparison with each of the evidence examined in the litigation of this case. Thus, even if Nonparty 1 received a final judgment of conviction due to perjury, it does not constitute grounds for a retrial. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that made the same purport does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or a violation of law

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

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)