[2] Whether the grounds of appeal on the assertion of violation of the precedents without a statement of specific Supreme Court precedents are appropriate (negative)

[3] Whether a new assertion in the supplemental appellate brief that was not timely filed can be a legitimate ground for appeal (negative)

[2] When the judgment of the court below asserts that it conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedents, it shall specify the precedents in detail.

[3] The grounds of appeal written in the supplemental appellate brief that was not timely filed may not be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal in a case where it supplements the grounds of appeal that was already filed within the time limit or contains a new assertion that is not related to ex officio investigation.

In full view of Articles 401 and 393 of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 83, 85, and 85-2 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court of final appeal may investigate and determine only to the extent of filing an objection based on the grounds of final appeal. As such, the grounds of final appeal specify the grounds of final appeal and states specific and explicit reasons as to which part of the judgment below is in violation of the statutes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu297, Nov. 22, 1983; 97Nu1235, Dec. 12, 1997). When the judgment of the court asserts that the grounds of final appeal conflict with the Supreme Court precedents, it shall specify the precedents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Da601, Feb. 14, 1984). Thus, if the supplemental appellate brief was not timely filed by the appellant, it shall not be deemed that the new appellate brief is not timely filed within 139 years after the final appeal.

In this case, there is no indication in the grounds of appeal, and the plaintiff's written grounds of appeal submitted by the court below are "First, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of legal acts, misunderstanding the legal principles on the interpretation of legal acts, and misunderstanding of facts in violation of the Supreme Court precedents, third, without failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation and explanation," and the plaintiff did not submit any supplementary appellate brief within the deadline for submitting the appellate brief after it stated that "There was an error by mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence," but the plaintiff did not submit any supplementary appellate brief within the deadline for submitting the appellate brief. The above statement in the grounds of appeal did not reveal specific and explicit grounds as to what portion of the court below's judgment is in violation of the laws and regulations, and the judgment of the court below did not specifically indicate what case is in violation of the law, and it cannot be viewed as legitimate grounds of appeal. Even if the plaintiff submitted any supplementary appellate brief in supplement to the above grounds of appeal after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, such statement cannot be deemed legitimate grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the plaintiff's 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)