[대여금][공1984.5.1.(727),575]
The meaning of "a decision inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedents" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.
The ruling contrary to the Supreme Court's decision under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where the interpretation of the law applicable to the specific case is inconsistent with the decision made by the Supreme Court. Thus, even if there is an error of law in violation of the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act and there is an error of law in violation of the Supreme Court's decision, it is not a legitimate ground for appeal because it is merely a violation of the law of misunderstanding.
Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Seoul Civil District Court Decision 81Na1029 delivered on March 2, 1982
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the records, this case is a small-sum case under Article 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and "when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 (2) 2 of the same Act has been made" means the case where a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision has been made with respect to the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes applicable to the specific case, and the decision of the court below which is discussed is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appropriation of the agreed amount in excess of the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents. However, even though the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the appropriation of the agreed amount in excess of the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, it is nothing
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the 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 Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)