[지료][공1997.4.1.(31),914]
In small claims cases, whether grounds of appeal are inconsistent with each other without specifying conflicting precedents (negative)
In order to file an appeal against the Supreme Court's decisions regarding small claims under the Trial of Small Claims Act, Article 8 of the Trial of Small Claims Act and Article 85 of the Rules on Civil Procedure shall specify what parts of the judgment below conflict with the Supreme Court's decisions, and shall specify the Supreme Court's decisions in detail.
Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, Article 8 of the Rules on Trial of Small Claims, Article 85 of the Rules on Civil Procedure
Supreme Court Decision 80Da1156 Decided July 8, 1980 (Gong1980, 13012) Supreme Court Decision 82Da413 Decided October 25, 1983 (Gong1983, 1739) Supreme Court Decision 83Da580 Decided March 13, 1984 (Gong1984, 597)
United Kingdom of the Republic of Korea
Lee Jae-in
Cheongju District Court Decision 96Na571 delivered on August 22, 1996
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
In order to file an appeal on the grounds that the Supreme Court's precedents under the Trial of Small Claims Act are small claims under the same Act, the part of the judgment below in accordance with Article 8 of the Trial of Small Claims Act and Article 85 of the Rules on Civil Procedure shall be clearly pointed out and specify the Supreme Court's precedents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da1156, Jul. 8, 1980; 82Da413, Oct. 25, 1983). Accordingly, the grounds for appeal that only asserted that the Supreme Court's precedents on the legal principles of this case were violated without clearly stating the Supreme Court's decisions that the judgment of the court below conflicts with each other in the appellate brief are not legitimate grounds for appeal, since the judgment of the court below is erroneous. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)