Where the false statement of witness is used as prepared evidence in a final and conclusive judgment, and grounds for retrial

Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, "when the false statement of a witness is admitted as evidence for the judgment" refers to the case where the false statement is provided as material for fact-finding on the grounds of the text of the judgment, and the case where the false statement is provided as material for fact-finding, which includes the case where it does not necessarily mean the case where the false statement was used as evidence, but indirectly affects it by using it as a comparison evidence.

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Appellee-Appellant et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Jong-hwan et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 88Rena322 delivered on April 24, 1989

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that even if the testimony of the witness was false, it cannot be a ground for retrial if it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, or that the testimony was not adopted as family or additional evidence for the reasons of the judgment, and that the plaintiff (the defendant; the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) purchased 11,00,000,00 won and 10,000 won were delivered to the defendant (the plaintiff hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for 10 or 10,000 won and 10,000 won were not later than 10,000 won and 10,000 won were less than 10,000 won, and the defendant's testimony and 10,000 won was not later than 10,000 won and 10,000 won were less than 10,000 won were less than 10,6,000 won were less than 10,000 won.

However, when the false statement of a witness, which is the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Act, is used as evidence of the judgment, it refers to the case where the false statement is provided as evidence of fact-finding which is the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Act. Therefore, even if the false statement is not adopted as evidence of fact-finding on the grounds of the judgment, or it is not probable that if it is not simply adopted as evidence of fact-finding or adopted as evidence of fact-finding, if the order of the judgment would vary if there is no false statement, it does not correspond to the above grounds for retrial. In this case, the provision of fact-finding as material of fact-finding does not necessarily mean only the time when the false statement was directly produced, but it includes cases where it was indirectly affected by using it as

However, examining the judgment subject to the review of this case (No. 12-2) through the record, the judgment subject to review of this case does not merely dismiss the statement No. 9-5, No. 10, No. 11, and No. 10, No. 11, which correspond to the defendant's defense cited by the court below, and the testimony of the first instance court witness Kim Il-young, which corresponds to the defendant's defense, in the judgment subject to review of this case, but rather rejected the following evidence, i.e., evidence No. 9-6, No. 7,88, and9, including the testimony of the witness 1 of the first instance court, and instead, it is found that the facts contrary thereto cannot be compatible with the defendant's defense.

Thus, the witness 1's testimony is not simply used as a material for additional fact-finding, such as the court below's statement, but it is used as a evidence to deny evidence that corresponds to the defendant's defense and its opposing fact-finding.

Furthermore, the witness 1's testimony and evidence Nos. 6,7,8,9-2 of No. 9 used as evidence to acknowledge facts as evidence for comparison and opposing facts is each suspect interrogation protocol prepared by the defendant in the criminal case against the plaintiff and the plaintiff's witness 1 in relation to the above case subject to review, and the court below's decision can be seen as the suspect interrogation protocol or statement of the same person as Gap evidence No. 18-1, 5, and 11 cited by the court below. Thus, if the witness 1's statement is false and it is confirmed as perjury, unless there are special circumstances, it shall be deemed that not only the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol as to the witness 1 who made a statement of the same purport, but also the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol, etc. of the plaintiff in relation to the plaintiff in the marital relation is consistent with empirical rules, and if so, if the witness 1 did not make a false statement, it cannot be said that the text of the judgment subject to

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's request for retrial on the grounds that the above grounds alleged by the plaintiff do not constitute grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Act, by misunderstanding the grounds for retrial (No. 12-2). The court below erred by misunderstanding the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Act, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the grounds for retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Act, which

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)