beta
Main Issues
Whether it constitutes a ground for appeal due to a misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete hearing (negative)
Summary of Judgment
The illegality in the misapprehension of the legal principle, the interpretation of the legal act, and the incomplete hearing is nothing more than a violation of the law, and it does not fall under any of the grounds provided in Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition etc. of Legal Proceedings
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 82Da404 Delivered on June 14, 1983 (Dong)
Plaintiff-Appellant
[Judgment of the court below] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Song Jin-hun, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant-Appellee
Defendant 1 and one other, Defendant 1 and 1 Defendants, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant
Judgment of the lower court
Daegu District Court Decision 82Na176 delivered on November 17, 1982
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to possession with respect to the acquisition by prescription, the establishment of contracts and contracts for a third party, and the interpretation of legal acts. However, all of these reasons are not merely a mere assertion of violation of Acts and subordinate statutes, and the precedents of party members pointed out in the theory of lawsuit also declared that all of the above reasons fall under the violation of Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the above grounds for appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal because they do not fall under any of the cases stipulated in Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
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.
Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young