The meaning of "when the Supreme Court makes a decision contrary to the precedents" in Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

In order to constitute "when the Supreme Court has made a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents" under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, it is necessary to point out in detail what part of the original judgment conflicts with the Supreme Court's precedents with respect to the interpretation of statutes applicable to the specific case

Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1156 Decided July 8, 1980, 81Da897 Decided March 9, 1982

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 82Na83 delivered on May 21, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, this case is a small-sum claim under the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the provisions of Articles 11 and 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall not apply to this case. Therefore, the application for a final appeal filed by the defendant shall be deemed to be a final appeal, and it shall be determined by considering the contents

With respect to the First and Three Points:

The court below erred in finding a monetary lending relationship as a conciliation bond under the Presidential Emergency Order No. 15 of the Presidential Emergency Order No. 15 of the Presidential Emergency Order No. 15 of the Act, and thereby finding that there was an error in the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of facts, and that there was an error in the omission of judgment due to the failure to make a judgment as to the offset claim, all of the arguments that the court below erred in the violation of laws and regulations, and therefore, they cannot

With respect to the second ground:

The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription against the plaintiff's interest claim portion was rejected by the court below, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision (76Da148 delivered on November 9, 1976). However, when the court below made a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, the court below should specifically point out what part of the original judgment conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision regarding the interpretation of the law applicable to the specific case in question (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da1156 delivered on July 8, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 81Da897 delivered on March 9, 1982). Thus, the Supreme Court's ruling of lawsuit is merely a declaration of intention to the general meaning of the prescription system, and it cannot be viewed as a case where the decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the above Act is made.

Therefore, all of the arguments are not legitimate grounds for appeal, and they are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and they are so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)