[1] The meaning of "when the false statement of a witness, which is a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, is admitted as evidence of a judgment"

[2] In case of succession by representation, where the spouse of an alternative person dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of succession by representation, whether the spouse is recognized as an alternative person (negative)

[1] The term "when the false statement of a witness, which is a ground for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, becomes a evidence of the judgment" refers to the case where the false statement is provided as direct or indirect material of fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment, and it is probable that the text of the judgment may vary if the false statement had not been made.

[2] According to the provisions of Articles 100(1), 1001 and 1003 of the Civil Act, where a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee who is to become an inheritor dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance, and where there is a lineal descendant or spouse of the deceased or disqualified person, he shall be an inheritor in lieu of the deceased or the disqualified person, and where the inheritance by representation is recognized only where the deceased or the disqualified person (the deceased or disqualified person) is a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee. Thus, the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) may be an inheritor pursuant to Article 1003 of the Civil Act. However, where the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance by representation, the spouse cannot be again recognized as an inheritor.

[1] Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 1000(1), 1001, and 103 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da5914 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 873) Supreme Court Decision 92Da33930 delivered on September 28, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 294) Supreme Court Decision 92Da33695 delivered on November 19, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 58) Supreme Court Decision 96Da18397 delivered on September 6, 196

Lee Jong-sung, a lawsuit taking over the part in the network's reasoning, and five others [Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant]

Guideho

[Defendant (Defendant-Appellant) and three others (Attorney Kim Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 97Na214, 221 delivered on November 20, 1998

All appeals filed by the plaintiff (the defendant) and the defendant (the plaintiff) against the defendant (the re-appellant), the rooftop heading, the rooftop heading, the heading, and the heading of the office building. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (the defendant for re-deliberation) and the defendant (the plaintiff for re-deliberation). The costs of appeal incurred between the plaintiff (the defendant for re-deliberation) and the defendant (the plaintiff for re-deliberation), and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff (the plaintiff for re-adjudication), the heading of the office building, the heading of the office

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the plaintiff (the defendant for retrial, the plaintiff)

A. As to the grounds for retrial

Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "when the false statement of a witness, which is a cause for a retrial under Article 422(1)7 of the Civil Procedure Act, becomes a evidence of the judgment" means the case where the false statement is provided as direct or indirect material of fact-finding that affects the text of the judgment, and it is probable that if the false statement had not been made, the text of the judgment may vary (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da18397 delivered on September 6, 199

In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 was sentenced to a fine of KRW 700,000 for perjury due to the non-party 1's appearance as a witness in the litigation for the judgment subject to a retrial and making a false statement as stated in its reasoning, and the non-party 1's above non-party 1's false statement was admitted as evidence, and the judgment for a judgment subject to a retrial in favor of the above reasons that the non-party 1 acquired the land of this case on November 17, 199, was pronounced. Such circumstances are deemed to constitute grounds for a retrial under Article 422 (1) 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the revocation of the judgment subject to a retrial is justifiable, and there is no error of law

B. As to the main claim

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below held that the above part of the reasons is merely a right to cultivate the land of this case, and that the presumption of autonomous possession of the land of this case was broken, and rejected the plaintiffs' claim for the acquisition by prescription on the premise that the possession of the above part of the reasons was an autonomous possession, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged by the plaintiffs.

2. Determination on the grounds of appeal by the defendant (the plaintiff for retrial, hereinafter the defendant) as to the name of the rooftop, the rooftop, the rooftop, and the effect of the rooftop

According to Articles 100(1), 1001 and 103 of the Civil Act, where a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee who is to become an inheritor dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance, and where there is a lineal descendant or spouse of the deceased or disqualified person, he shall be an inheritor in lieu of the order of the deceased or the disqualified person, and where succession by representation is recognized only where the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) is a lineal descendant or sibling of the inheritee. Thus, the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) may be an inheritor pursuant to Article 1003 of the Civil Act. However, where the spouse of the person who is to become an inheritor (the deceased or disqualified person) dies or becomes disqualified before the commencement of the inheritance by substitute (the deceased or disqualified person) is deceased or becomes disqualified, the spouse may not be again recognized as an inheritor.

According to the records, Defendant 1’s name kynasium, office houses, and office houses were born between the non-party 1’s father and his former kynasp Kim-ju who was the non-party 2’s father, and it was clear that the kynasp were killed before the kynasp’s death. Thus, even if the above defendants’ lineal ascendant of the above defendants were the husband of the kynasp and were alive at the time of the commencement of the inheritance of this case, he cannot be the heir of the kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kynasp’s kyna’s kyna’s ky.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the above defendants cannot become the heir of the deceased's sale, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standing to sue of the above defendants, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the standing to sue.

3. Therefore, all appeals filed by the plaintiffs and the defendant's office-to-door, office-to-house, office-to-house, and office-to-house efficacy are dismissed. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and the defendant's background are assessed against the plaintiffs. The costs of appeal between the plaintiffs and defendant's office-to-house, office-to-house, office-to-house, office-to-house, and office-to-house efficacy are assessed against the defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Cho Chang-hoon (Presiding Justice)