Whether the grounds for re-appeal on the grounds of the violation are specified and not specified in the case

Article 11 (1) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which applies mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 13 of the same Act, shall not apply where a reappeals do not specifically specify what Supreme Court decisions conflict with one another on grounds that the Supreme Court has made conflicting judgments.

Articles 11(1)3 and 13 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[Judgment of the court below]

Daegu District Court Order 83Ra46 dated July 1, 1983

The reappeal is dismissed.

The re-appellant's re-appeal ground is examined.

The legal or legal principles pointing out the arguments are not applicable to any ground for re-appeal under Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is applied mutatis mutandis by Article 13 of the same Act, and the Supreme Court's decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision. As such, it does not specifically state what kind of grounds for re-appeal are contrary to the Supreme Court's decision. Thus, each ground for re-appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for re-appeal as it does not fall

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)