The meaning of "when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents is made" under Article 3 (2) of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

"When a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to cases where a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision is made on the interpretation of statutes that apply to specific cases.

Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Da1080 Delivered on June 14, 1988

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Daegu District Court Decision 87Na383 delivered on October 19, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that "when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents has been made" refers to cases where an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of statutes applicable to specific cases is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Da1080, Jun. 14, 198).

In applying special cases concerning statutory interest rate which is the basis for calculating the amount of damages due to the nonperformance of monetary obligations as stipulated in Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings and making decisions in violation of the Supreme Court precedents by applying the same from the day after the due date of repayment of monetary obligations to the obligor. However, from among the Supreme Court precedents where the theory of lawsuit is pointed out, the Supreme Court Decisions 4291No178 delivered on March 31, 1960 and 64Na1083 delivered on December 29, 1964, which held that the interpretation of Article 397 of the Civil Act prior to the enactment of the above special cases, and the Supreme Court Decisions 86No1876 delivered on May 26, 1987, which held that the obligor's obligation under Article 3 (2) of the above Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Legal Proceedings should not be justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)

As a leap business trip, impossible to affix a name and seal;