Whether the appeal constitutes a ground for appeal to criticize the fact-finding on the ground of the violation of precedent

If the gist of the grounds of appeal is merely criticisming the fact-finding by the court below on the grounds of the violation of the Supreme Court precedents, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in light of the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion of Legal Proceedings

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Young-gu et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na4469 delivered on May 30, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The gist of the grounds of appeal of this case is that the court below erred in violation of the precedents such as Supreme Court Decision 65Da825 delivered on October 21, 1966 concerning the interpretation of Article 756 of the Civil Act; Supreme Court Decision 76Da1743 delivered on October 12, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 83Meu217 delivered on June 28, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 83Meu217 delivered on June 28, 1983; however, it is obvious that the court below's fact-finding cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal in light of the provisions of Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., since the appeal cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal, it shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)