In order to determine whether the grounds of appeal for right fall under the grounds of appeal.

B. Whether the grounds of appeal that do not specify the Supreme Court precedents specifically conflict with each other are appropriate

(c) Decision on whether the appeal is reasonable on the ground of fact-finding contrary to the legislative confession.

(d) The validity in the appellate trial of the constructive confession in the first instance.

All the arguments that there are errors in the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to customary law can not be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc.

B. The argument that the Supreme Court precedents are contrary to the precedents cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

C. Although the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles on constructive confession and rendered a judgment on the plaintiff's failure, it cannot be viewed that it made a judgment on the interpretation of the law that it can find facts contrary to the constructive confession without any violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, this cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

D. Even if there was a constructive confession in the first instance trial, the legal fiction of confession cannot be said to have been raised unless the appellate court contests it from the time of closing argument.

(a)Article 11(1) and (d) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings;

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Da742 delivered on June 14, 1983, 82Da675 delivered on July 12, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 83Da259 delivered on September 13, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 82Da521 delivered on November 23, 1982, 82Da590 delivered on February 22, 1983, 83Da367, 368 delivered on November 22, 1983. Supreme Court Decision 65Da495 delivered on May 17, 1966, 67Da2677 delivered on March 19, 1968.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na4294 delivered on July 28, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The appeal against the judgment of the appellate court as in this case is permitted only on the ground that there is a ground stipulated in Article 11 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. All the allegations that there is an error in the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to customary law cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Da742, Jun. 14, 1983; 82Da675, Jul. 12, 1983; 87Da675, Jul. 12, 1983). The part of the judgment of the appellate court which caused the violation of the precedents cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Da259, Sept. 13, 1983). Although the defendant was summoned without summons from service by public notice, it cannot be viewed that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff 16000.3.

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 Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)