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

When a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act refers to the case where a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's decision has been made on the interpretation of statutes applicable to specific cases, and there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to disposition documents in the judgment of the court below, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's decision (Supreme Court Decision 68Da1918, 1919 delivered on Nov. 26, 1968: Supreme Court Decision 74Da42 delivered on Apr. 9, 1974). However, this is merely a violation of the law of simple misapprehension of legal principles, which is contrary to the interpretation of statutes declared by the Supreme Court's decision, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal

Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1156 delivered on July 8, 1980, 81Da812 delivered on March 9, 1982, 81Da897 delivered on March 9, 1982, 82Da354 delivered on November 23, 1982

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 82Na249 delivered on June 23, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

This case is a small-sum case under the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the same Act refers to the case where the decision is made in conflict with the decision made by the Supreme Court concerning the interpretation of the statutes applicable to the specific case. Therefore, the decision of the court below which is discussed is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the disposition documents, which is contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents. However, even though there are errors such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment of the court below, it is nothing more than the violation of the law of a simple misunderstanding of legal principles, which is contrary to the interpretation

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 Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)