Whether the error of interpreting a disposition document can be the ground of appeal for violation of the precedent (negative)

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the judgment of the court below against the opinion of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of a disposition document (Supreme Court Decision 4290Da70350 delivered on October 30, 1958; Supreme Court Decision 4291Da853, 854, 855 delivered on December 24, 1959) is erroneous in the misapprehension of a sales contract and recognized facts different from the contents of the contract. However, even if the judgment of the court below erred in the misapprehension of the theory of lawsuit, this is not merely a violation of law, and the Supreme Court precedents of the theory of lawsuit declared that the above error constitutes a violation of law and therefore, all of the grounds of appeal are not all the grounds of appeal under Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion of Legal Proceedings

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant Kim Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 81Na3479 delivered on August 26, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the court below erred by misapprehending the opinion of the party members of the case law as to the interpretation of the disposition document, and thereby recognizing facts different from the contents of the document. However, even if the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit, it is not merely a violation of the law, and it is merely a mere declaration that the above error constitutes a violation of the law, and the party members of the theory of lawsuit filed by the court below, and the grounds of appeal refer to all the grounds of appeal under Article 11 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

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 Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)