The meaning of the decision in conflict with the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 (2) of the Trial of Small Claims Act;

The ruling contrary to the Supreme Court's decision under Article 3 (2) of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where the Supreme Court makes an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision on the interpretation of the law applicable to specific cases.

Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Da67 Decided July 8, 1986

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Daejeon District Court Decision 86Na215 delivered on August 13, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

This case is a small-sum case under the Trial of Small Claims Act, and it refers to the case where a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 (2) of the Trial of Small Claims Act is made in conflict with the Supreme Court's decisions on the interpretation of the statutes that are applicable to the specific case. As such, the judgment of the court below recognizes the fact that a promissory note has not been recovered as stated in the theory of lawsuit and recognizes the fact that payment has been made, and even if there is a defect in violation of each of the Supreme Court's precedents by rejecting the contents of the statement in the statement of pleading, this is not only a judgment contrary to the interpretation of statutes declared by the theory of lawsuit, but it is merely a mistake of facts due to a violation

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 judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)