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

The term "when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act" means the case where the Supreme Court made an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decisions on the interpretation of statutes applicable to specific cases.

Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Da582 delivered on March 12, 1985, 85Da463 delivered on May 27, 1986, and 87Da180 delivered on September 8, 1987

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 87Na292 delivered on February 11, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

When the Supreme Court rendered a decision contrary to the Supreme Court precedents under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of Acts and subordinate statutes applicable to the specific case in question has been made, and where the original judgment is adopted as evidence for the fact-finding as to the witness's testimony which has parts that conflict with and conflict with each other in the original judgment, the Supreme Court's decision that the rejection of any part and which part of the evidence should be clearly decided (Supreme Court Decision 63Da134 delivered on April 25, 1963) and the theory of the lawsuit that the contents of evidence should not be against the rule of experience and sound reasoning (Supreme Court Decision 72Da2332 delivered on October 23, 1973) are erroneous, even if this is merely a violation of the rule of evidence, and the theory of the lawsuit also violates the rules of evidence rather than a mere violation of the rules of evidence interpretation, it does not constitute a case where the Supreme Court's decision as provided in subparagraph 2 of this Article.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for the reason that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Byung-hee (Presiding Justice)