1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court concludes the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes, on the ground that it is a small amount case, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. In such special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be viewed as the ground for appeal, even if it does not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1878 Decided August 20, 2004, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da48824 Decided March 26, 2015, etc.). In accordance with the Welfare Act and subordinate statutes governing the welfare of persons with disabilities, where the disabled and the guardian have been separated from each other, if the support benefits continue to exist, then there is no Supreme Court precedent as to whether the liability for return of unjust enrichment under Article 741 of the Civil Act is recognized, and there is a situation where the lower court’s judgment is different. Thus, the interpretation and application of the above Act and subordinate statutes of this case are determined.

2.(a)

Article 29 (1) of the former Act on Welfare of Persons with Disabilities (wholly amended by Act No. 8367 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be applied for registration to the head of Si/Gun/Gu with respect to the state of disability and other matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare.