[1] Whether limiting the grounds for final appeal against small claims under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act can be deemed as a violation of the right to claim a trial (negative)

[2] Legislative intent of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

[3] Whether it can be deemed that the absence of a Supreme Court precedent regarding the interpretation of the statute as to small claims constitutes an infringement of the right of citizens to a trial under Articles 101(2) and 27(1) of the Constitution, unless the grounds for appeal exist (negative)

[1] Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act and Article 27 (1) of the Constitution / [2] Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act / [3] Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, Articles 27 (1) and 101 (2) of the Constitution

[1] [2] Constitutional Court en banc Order 90Hun-Ba25 dated June 26, 1992

National Health Insurance Corporation (Law Firm Spah, Attorneys Gyeong-Jon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

The motion of this case is dismissed.

Article 27 (1) of the Constitution provides that "the right to be tried by a judge who is prescribed by the Constitution and Act" means the right to be tried by a judge who is appointed in accordance with the qualifications and procedures prescribed by the Constitution and Act, and whose physical independence and human independence are guaranteed, and it cannot be deemed that the right to be tried by a judge who constitutes the Supreme Court for all cases without regard to the seriousness of the cases." The term "the right to be tried by law" means the right to be tried by a judge, but it means the right to be tried by a judge as prescribed by the law, i.e., the right to be tried in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the substantive law, excluding a judgment by a person and a person under the former part. Thus, it is difficult to see that the right to be tried by a court of final appeal has not been created immediately. It does not mean that all citizens have the right to be tried by a court of final appeal without providing an express provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to be tried by a court of final appeal, and that the right to be tried by a court of final appeal cannot be viewed as a uniform case.

The grounds of appeal under Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, despite the fact that they are orders, regulations, and dispositions violating the Constitution and laws, is constitutional or applicable with the law, or against this, it is possible to file a final appeal and make corrections in light of the importance of the case in the case of opposing cases, and thereby, to realize the principles of the state of the Constitution or the principles of the rule of law. Furthermore, when the judgment becomes the premise for whether orders, regulations, or dispositions violate the Constitution or laws, it is possible to comply with the provisions of Article 107(2) of the Constitution, provided that the Supreme Court has the power to finally review them. The grounds of appeal under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, which provides that the performance of the essential function of the Supreme Court's interpretation and unification of domestic statutes, through the precedents at the fixed point of the court organization, shall not be excluded in the case of small claims (see Constitutional Court Order 90HunBa25, Jun. 26, 192).

In a case where there are special circumstances, such as the subject of a judgment in the court of final appeal, in principle, there are no Supreme Court precedents on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case, and there are many small claims that are controversial issues in the interpretation of the same statutes, and the stability of the people's legal life is a problem due to the adjudication of the court, the court of final appeal may ex officio determine ex officio the interpretation of the substantive law and the error in application of the judgment of the court in order to perform the intrinsic function of interpretation and unification of application of statutes, notwithstanding the limitation on the grounds of final appeal provided for in the Trial Act, so the fact that Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act does not stipulate "when there is no Supreme Court precedents on the interpretation of statutes" does not constitute an infringement of the right to a citizen's trial under Article 101 (2) of the Constitution and Article 27 (1) of the Constitution, which provides the highest court of the Supreme Court.

Therefore, the applicant's motion to propose the unconstitutionality of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)