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

The Supreme Court's decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision as to the interpretation of the law applicable to a specific case. Thus, even if there is a defect in the decision of the court below, it is not merely a violation of the law, and it is not a case where the decision of the court below is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision that the above defect constitutes a violation of the law.

Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da897 delivered on March 9, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Cheongju District Court Decision 81Na94 delivered on April 23, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, this case constitutes a small-sum case as provided in Article 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act. According to Article 3 of the same Act, the Supreme Court's decision as to whether or not such small-sum case has violated the Constitution or has violated the regulations, rules or dispositions, or has rendered a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision. However, the court below's decision as to the appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the validity of land circumstances, the validity of registration of transfer of real estate ownership, the effect of transfer of real estate ownership, and the most transfer, and there is no evidence in violation of the Supreme Court's decision, or the fact-finding without rejection of evidence inconsistent with the facts at the time of the original trial, thereby violating the rules of evidence, or violating the rules of evidence

However, the above simple misapprehension of legal principles does not fall under any of the above grounds of appeal, and thus cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. The decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 (2) of the above Act refers to the case where the Supreme Court has interpreted the interpretation of the law applicable to the specific case in question in conflict with the decision made by the Supreme Court. Thus, even if there is a defect in the court below's decision that has failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations or rules of evidence, it is not merely a violation of the law, and the theory of the lawsuit is merely a declaration that the above defect constitutes a violation of the law. Thus, the above reasons are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. 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 Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)