The meaning of "when a decision is made contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

"When the Supreme Court makes a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents" in Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of statutes that apply to specific cases in question, and simple grounds for violation of statutes, such as lack of reason, exercise of right to explanation, violation of the rules of evidence, and mistake of facts, do not constitute such grounds

Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1156 Decided July 8, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 81Da812 Decided March 9, 1982

Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 81Na272 delivered on June 5, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

This case is a small claim subject to the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the following is examined in light of the summary of the grounds of appeal.

(1) The first summary is that the court below does not state all the reasons, such as what the right of Nonparty 1 on the part of the plaintiff, what the right of subrogation is to be preserved as the exercise of the plaintiff's right of subrogation, why the requirements for the exercise of the right of subrogation are met, and why why the defendant's possession based on the right of lease on a deposit basis is an illegal possession. This is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision that the decision should be stated in the case where the reasons for the decision are not specified, the reason for the decision is not reasonable, and

However, the ruling contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 (2) 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where it has been interpreted contrary to the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of the law applicable to the specific case, and even if there is a defect in the exercise of reason, such as the theory of lawsuit, and even if there is a defect in the court below's decision, it does not constitute a simple violation of law. Since the theory of lawsuit is merely a declaration that the above defect constitutes a violation of law, it does not constitute a case where the above reason is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision under Article 3 (2) 2 of the above Act.

(2) The second summary of the judgment below is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision that the part prior to the extension of the building of this case (the part attached to the judgment of the court below Da, D) still remains in the order of the court below that the accessory still remains in the order of the court below, despite the fact that the accessory property of this case remains in the order of the court below, when the main building was sold to the Korean-style rooftop as an accessory to the building of this case from the order of the court below, and that the subsequent extension part of the building of this case, although the accessory property of this case was attached to the non-party Han commercial name or the plaintiff's title, the whole building of this part included in this part remains in the order of the court below's decision

However, the judgment of the court below is the purport that the building in this case is not an accessory to the building in this case from the beginning, and it is clear that the extended part is not an object of independent right attached to the building by title, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as the ground of appeal for violation of the Supreme Court precedents, because it is erroneous for the court below's fact-finding.

(3) The third summary is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision that the Plaintiff's lease of the building of this case to the Defendant, despite the prior confession, recognized that the lease contract of KRW 200,000 on a deposit basis between the non-party Kim Yong- Yong and the Defendant was concluded differently from the confession is not possible to find facts contrary to the confession. However, even though the court below erred in finding facts different from the confession as in the theory of the lawsuit, it is nothing more than the fact that the court below erred in finding facts contrary to the rules of evidence, but it did not render a decision of interpretation that the plaintiff can find facts contrary to the confession, contrary to the Supreme Court's decision, and it does not constitute a case where the decision is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision.

(4) Fourth, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the right to lease on a deposit basis, thereby violating the Supreme Court precedents, and also judged contrary to the Supreme Court precedents on the right to subrogation of creditors. However, even if there were errors in the judgment of the court below in the same manner as the theory of the lawsuit in the judgment of the court below, it is merely a violation of the rules of evidence or a violation of the law of mistake of facts, even though the judgment contrary to the statutory interpretation declared by each court precedents, and it is difficult to see the grounds for appeal as stipulated in Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

2. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)