Whether a decision to dismiss an application for a final appeal without stating the grounds therefor constitutes "the Supreme Court's decision" under Article 3 (2) of the Trial of Small Claims Act (negative)

In order to constitute “when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents” under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, what part of the original judgment is contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents should be specified on the interpretation of the statutes applicable to the relevant case. Therefore, the decision to dismiss an appeal without stating the grounds therefor does not constitute the Supreme Court’s decision.

Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Korea Electric Power Corporation’s Attorney Park Jae-hoon

Daegu District Court Decision 88Na5028 delivered on April 7, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

In order to constitute “when the Supreme Court rendered a decision contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedents” under Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, it is necessary to concretely point out which part of the original judgment is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s precedents with respect to the interpretation of the statutes to be applied to the specific case. Therefore, the decision to dismiss an application for a final appeal without stating the grounds therefor shall not be deemed to fall under the Supreme Court’s precedents. However, the Supreme Court’s decision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu379, Apr. 7, 1987) which points out the theory of the lawsuit shall be searched, and as a result, it is obvious that the decision to dismiss the application for a final appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

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

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)