beta
Main Issues
Whether specific Supreme Court precedents are appropriate on the basis of a violation of precedents that are not publicly known;
Summary of Judgment
If the grounds of appeal on the grounds of the violation of precedents do not specifically indicate the violation of any case, it shall not be recognized as legitimate grounds of appeal.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion of Legal Proceedings
Reference Cases
Supreme Court Decision 83Da259 delivered on Sep. 13, 1983, 83Da602 delivered on Feb. 14, 1984
Plaintiff-Appellee
Attorney Go Jae-ho and Kim Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant
Defendant-Appellant
Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 83Na951 delivered on September 23, 1983
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
Of the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 1978, Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da2427 delivered on December 26, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 77Da2427 delivered on the same real estate is related to cases where registration for preservation has been made in duplicate in the name of the same person, and the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the above party members' judgment, on the ground that the case where registration for preservation of ownership has been made in duplicate in the name of the same person is different from this case. Among the grounds of appeal No. 2, the part claiming a violation of the precedents is not clearly indicated in any case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not legitimate grounds of appeal since it does not constitute a legitimate ground of appeal since it does not constitute a ground of appeal under any subparagraph of Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion 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