Summary
Small claims cases are subject to separately limited grounds for final appeal and re-appeal.
6.1The Standard by Which the Path Opens
The avenue of challenge for cases involving small amounts is not opened by an explanation of ordinary cases alone. As concluded in the preceding section, the statutory text takes as its object the facts lawfully established by the judgment of the court below, and so complaints about findings of fact must be separated from questions of legality. On this premise, plaintiff A complains that it is unjust that the court below disbelieved a witness, yet A has not yet distinguished which legal rule was violated. It has not even been settled whether that complaint targets the unfairness of the outcome of the fact-finding or asserts that a legal rule was breached in the course of assessing the witness's reliability. In such a scene, the questions now are what standard opens the entrance to the Supreme Court, and whether the same grounds for final appeal can be used in every case.
The avenue of challenge for small claims cases is directly provided by Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act. Under its text, as to a second-instance judgment or a ruling or order of the collegiate panel of the District Court main court in a small claims case, a final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court only in any one of the following cases. The permitted grounds are limited to two. The first is "a case in which the judgment as to whether a law, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution, and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act, is improper," and the second is "a case in which a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court was rendered" (Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act). The actor to which this text points is a party who wishes to challenge a second-instance judgment or a ruling or order of the collegiate panel of the District Court main court; the act is a final appeal or reappeal to the Supreme Court; and the condition is confined to the case falling under one of the two enumerated grounds.
Connecting this text with the entrance standard for this remedy yields the judgment that the pathway opens only where a violation of statutes or regulations that affected the judgment, or a ground for final appeal under the relevant special Act, has been specified and properly submitted. Here two steps must be distinguished. The first is the question whether the demanded performance, the parties, and the conditions are specified in the claim statement and whether the right of the chosen form of action can be defended—that is, whether it is settled what claim is being contested. The second is the question whether the ground submitted within that framework specifies a violation of statutes or regulations and whether it affected the judgment. The former specification fixes the subject of examination for the latter, and the latter determination of influence decides whether the ground specified in the former is worth actually examining. Since the entrance does not open with either one alone, the two steps cannot be mixed so as to substitute substantive adjudication for the formal requirements of the statement of grounds for final appeal.
The strongest counterargument against this standard is that even a small amount may be decisive harm to the party. A sum that appears trivial by everyday standards may be an amount upon which the success or failure of the entire dispute turns for the parties to that lawsuit, and the worry is that if a fact-finding was wrong and a substantive error remains because of the restriction to review on questions of law, the small claims party will bear the disadvantage of the final and conclusive judgment without obtaining a favorable rehearing. This worry does not disappear. The settled answer, however, stands. General grounds for final appeal cannot simply be carried over as the permitted grounds for small claims cases. Article 3 narrows the permitted grounds to two by its very text, and that narrowing is the restriction on appeals in small claims cases established by the special Act. The weight of the harm and the scope of the grounds of examination are matters of a different dimension, and the former cannot be used as a basis for widening the latter.
Contrasting this point with the synthetic scene confirms only the fact that plaintiff A considers it unjust that the court below disbelieved a witness but has not yet distinguished which legal rule was violated. This is a scene in which no violation of statutes or regulations is specified in the statement of grounds for final appeal, and thus a case in which no ground to examine a violation of statutes or regulations that affected the judgment has yet been submitted. If a violation of statutes or regulations that affected the judgment, or a ground for final appeal under the relevant special Act, had been specified and properly submitted, the conditions for opening the entrance to this remedy would be met. Meanwhile, if the case is classified as a small claims case, the permitted grounds of the special Act are contrasted instead of the general grounds for final appeal. Since no small claims classification is designated in the scene, it is not determined from this scene alone which of the general grounds or the special Act's grounds is to be applied. Accordingly, all that is presently confirmed is that the object of the complaint has not been specified, and the determination of the applicable ground remains undetermined.
The boundary between the conclusions this section permits and those it does not permit lies here. What is permitted is the judgment that the pathway of this remedy opens when a violation of statutes or regulations that affected the judgment, or a ground for final appeal under the relevant special Act, has been specified and properly submitted. What is not permitted is to regard the grounds for final appeal as complete upon nothing more than a complaint that the outcome of the fact-finding is unjust, or to carry general grounds for final appeal over as the permitted grounds for small claims cases.
6.2The Conditions That Block Relief
In this scene, an argument demanding an evaluation of the established facts and an argument asking whether statutes and regulations were observed in the course of that establishment stand before different thresholds. The former leaves nothing as a subject for renewed examination, but the latter may become a ground for examination. If so, what is the condition under which the door of the Supreme Court is closed?
Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act draws the line by providing that, as to a second-instance judgment or a ruling or order of the collegiate panel of the District Court main court in a small claims case, "a final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court only in any one of the following cases." This text does not define the party bringing the challenge but the conditions under which that pathway opens. The object is the second-instance judgment or the ruling or order in a small claims case; the act is a final appeal or reappeal to the Supreme Court; and the condition is limited to the case falling under any one of the subparagraphs of the same Article. There is no need to expound the other issues in the provision.
There are only two such conditions. One is "a case in which the judgment as to whether a law, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution, and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act, is improper," and the other is "a case in which a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court was rendered." These two constitute the grounds for examination, and a demand that lawfully established facts be re-evaluated is not among them. Accordingly, distinguishing complaints about established facts from questions of legality in the course of establishment is not a matter of form. It is because the former is filtered out at the threshold of this Article and only the latter can be examined as an impropriety in judgment. If any one of the statutory requirements is not satisfied, the remedial pathway of the Supreme Court is closed.
The discomfort left by that distinction is not small. Even a small amount may be decisive harm to the party, and if the credibility of a witness's statement was misread and facts were wrongly established, a substantive error remains in the range that review on questions of law does not reach. Under a system in which the Supreme Court does not re-fix the facts, the circumstances of those who must bear the error do not disappear. Yet the threshold of the grounds that Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act narrows is not lowered on that account alone.
Among the facts of the synthetic scene, what bears on this question is that plaintiff A regards the court below's fact-finding, which disbelieved the witness, as unjust, yet has not yet distinguished which legal rule is at issue. If this argument demands a re-evaluation of lawfully established facts, then neither of the two grounds under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act has been specified. Conversely, if it is an argument that statutes or regulations were violated in the course of fact-finding, then which judgment was improper must be specified, and it must also be shown whether that violation affected the judgment. Since the scene alone does not determine which of the two it is, nor whether the case is classified as a small claims case under the special Act, the remaining determinations remain undetermined.
What this section permits is to view the appeal restriction for small claims cases as grounds for challenge before the Supreme Court narrowed by the special Act, and to decide the possibility of relief by the presence or absence of grounds meeting that threshold. What this section does not permit is the expectation that, upon nothing more than an argument that the fact-finding was wrong, the Supreme Court will re-fix the facts.
6.3The Boundary That Remains When There Is No Data
In this scene, it must first be ascertained what judgmental materials the examination of violations of statutes and regulations at the appellate stage is to take charge of. There is a state in which a complaint that appears to be a mere dispute over facts is mixed with an argument that a violation of statutes or regulations occurred in the course of fact-finding. This question also asks how to distinguish, from impossibility, the case in which no judgmental material can be found in the records.
Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that "as to a second-instance judgment or a ruling or order of the collegiate panel of the District Court main court in a small claims case, a final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court only in any one of the following cases. 1. A case in which the judgment as to whether a law, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution, and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act, is improper. 2. A case in which a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court was rendered. [Entirely amended March 28, 2023.]" This text limits the subject of the second-instance judgment or the ruling or order that is the object of the final appeal to the collegiate panel of the District Court main court, and narrows the grounds of challenge to the two enumerated cases. Accordingly, the appeal restriction for small claims cases means grounds for challenge before the Supreme Court narrowed by the special Act.
That Article 3 enumerates the grounds divided into two subparagraphs is the result of matching the object of the final appeal with the subject of examination. Subparagraph 1 deals with the case in which the judgment as to whether the Constitution was violated and whether an Act was violated is improper, and subparagraph 2 separately provides for the case in which a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court was rendered. The conclusion that general grounds for final appeal cannot simply be carried over as the permitted grounds for small claims cases follows from here. A mere complaint that the fact-finding was wrong does not fix the subject of examination, and only when it is specified which legal rule was violated in what manner in the course of fact-finding does one reach the grounds of Article 3.
Even a small amount may be decisive harm to the party. If the appeal restriction for small claims cases is tightened, substantive errors remain when fact-finding is wrong because of the restriction to review on questions of law. The standard that separates complaints from allegations of violations of statutes and regulations may at once block the way to redress of that harm. Article 3 limits the grounds to two subparagraphs, and that limitation is not resolved merely by the circumstance that the amount is small. The harm pointed out by the counterargument is acknowledged, but the pathway for remedying that harm opens only within the scope of the grounds prescribed by Article 3.
Since plaintiff A has not yet distinguished which legal rule was violated, it is also undetermined whether subparagraph 1 or subparagraph 2 of Article 3 applies. The examination of violations of statutes and regulations at the appellate stage operates where a violation of statutes or regulations that affected the judgment, or a ground for final appeal under the relevant special Act, has been specified and properly submitted. Conversely, it does not operate where there is only a demand that lawfully established facts be re-evaluated and no ground of violation of statutes or regulations to examine. If it is impossible to distinguish whether plaintiff A's argument is a dispute over facts or an allegation of a violation of statutes or regulations in the course of fact-finding, the judgmental material remains unspecified. This case must be left undetermined, distinguished from the impossibility of there being no material to examine.
The conclusion permitted in this section remains within the compass of the distinction that the grounds for final appeal in small claims cases are not the same as in ordinary cases, and that within that distinction a lack of material is not fixed as impossibility. The magnitude of the harm suffered by plaintiff A cannot be determined in this section, and the outcome of success or failure or of recovery is unverified for want of material. Matters left undetermined do not by that token mean that relief is impossible.
6.4The Records Needed for Determination
On the premise of this conclusion, plaintiff A complains that it is unjust that the court below disbelieved a witness, yet A has not yet distinguished which legal rule was violated. In this scene, the plaintiff's complaint concerns the outcome of the judgment of evidence, and which legal rule was breached in the course of that judgment is not specified. Accordingly, at the Supreme Court the question whether the same grounds for final appeal can be used in every case is examined together with the question, Which records are needed to determine the stage at the Supreme Court?
Looking to Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act to confirm the threshold set by the special Act, the same provision states that, as to a second-instance judgment or a ruling or order of the collegiate panel of the District Court main court in a small claims case, a final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court only in any one of the following cases. This text limits the subject and stage of the adjudication that is the object to the second-instance stage of the collegiate panel of the District Court main court, fixes the act as a final appeal and a reappeal to the Supreme Court, and narrows the condition to the case falling under one of the two enumerated grounds (Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act).
This text connects the conditions it prescribes with the foregoing distinction. Considering it unjust that the court below disbelieved a witness is the former case, and specifying what violation of statutes or regulations occurred in the course of that judgment is the latter case. Only when the two cases are separated does it become visible what requirements are to be handled at the Supreme Court, and even after the separation the stage is determined solely by the established items of the records—the fact-finding of the court below, the statement of grounds for final appeal, the effect of the violation of statutes or regulations, and the classification of the case under the special Act. Records that do not exist are not filled in by conjecture.
The counterargument that this distinction misses something is considered here. It is also pointed out that when fact-finding is wrong, a substantive error remains because of the restriction to review on questions of law. Even a small debt or cost may be, in that party's circumstances, a consequence difficult to undo, and it is unsatisfactory that the court cannot deal with such loss. This answer maintains the limitation of the conditions confirmed above while not erasing the disadvantage pointed out by the counterargument.
Drawing out only the settled facts of the synthetic scene for contrast, the plaintiff's argument is a complaint about the outcome of assessing the witness's credibility, and which legal rule was violated has not yet been distinguished. On this fact alone it is not clear whether it is a dispute over facts or an allegation of a violation of statutes or regulations in the course of fact-finding, and so the determination remains undetermined. If it is confirmed to be classified as a small claims case, the conclusion changes, as the permitted grounds of the special Act apply instead of the general grounds for final appeal. Where a violation of statutes or regulations that affected the judgment, or a ground for final appeal under the relevant special Act, has been specified and properly submitted, the case leans toward there being a ground for examination; where there is only a demand that lawfully established facts be re-evaluated and no ground of violation of statutes or regulations to examine, it leans toward the pathway being blocked. However, since neither the classification of the case nor the remaining items of the records are settled in this scene, the final stage cannot be fixed from the scene alone.
In sum, what this section permits is, after distinguishing complaints about fact-finding from questions of legality with respect to the established items of the records, to contrast them with the permitted grounds of the special Act where the case is classified as a small claims case. What this section does not permit is determining the stage by conjecturing facts absent from the records, and carrying general grounds for final appeal over as the permitted grounds for small claims cases. What is fixed here is only the records needed for the judgment and the direction of the contrast; the success or failure of an actual case, or the result of recovery, is not determined by this scene.
6.5Circumstances That Change the Decision
In the preceding section, it was held that this determination rests on the fact-finding of the court below, the grounds for final appeal, the effect of the violation of statutes and regulations, and the classification of the case under the special Act, and that if those records are absent the conclusion remains undetermined. On the premise of the records fixed by this determination, the question that remains is what change in circumstances would reverse the determination. In such a case, the grounds for objection to be compared vary with how the classification of the case is premised.
Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides: "A final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court against a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance rendered by the collegiate panel of the main court of the District Court in a small claims case only in any of the following cases." This language makes clear that the object is a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance rendered by the collegiate panel of the main court of the District Court in a small claims case. The permissible grounds are limited, in the same Article, to the case falling under subparagraph 1, where the judgment on whether a statute, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act is unjust, and the case falling under subparagraph 2, where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered (Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act).
What bridges this language and the conclusion confirmed above is the stage of case classification. Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act narrows the permissible grounds; accordingly, once the classification is fixed as a small claims case, the grounds for final appeal to be compared become the grounds set out in these subparagraphs. Therefore, the contention that the fact-finding is unjust and the assertion specifying what violation of statutes and regulations occurred part ways at that stage. The former alone does not specify the grounds to be examined, and only if the latter is submitted together can one compare which subparagraph applies.
The strongest counterargument targets the point that, although the amount is small, it may nonetheless be a decisive loss to the party. The disadvantage it points out is the situation in which, when the fact-finding is wrong, a substantive error remains owing to the restriction on review of issues of law. The inconvenience that the court's credibility falls if the loss remaining with the party is disregarded is likewise great. Yet even after answering this counterargument, one cannot transfer the general grounds for final appeal as they stand into the permissible grounds for small claims cases. While the permissible grounds prescribed in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act are left as they are, the residual disadvantages are left to be addressed within the bounds permitted by the legislature.
All that appears in the synthetic scene is the fact that plaintiff A regards the court below's treatment of witness credibility as unjust, and what violation of statutes and regulations it was has not yet been distinguished. Subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides for the case where the judgment on whether a statute, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act is unjust, and subparagraph 2 provides for the case where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered. Since the facts of the scene alone cannot determine which subparagraph is engaged, this item remains undetermined. However, if the premise that plaintiff A is a party to a small claims case holds, the grounds to be compared are not the general grounds for final appeal but the subparagraphs of Article 3. The scene sets only the condition of this threshold and does not state an outcome.
The conclusion this section permits is that a final appeal in a case classified as a small claims case is limited to the grounds prescribed in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act; what it does not permit is opening the same channel by general grounds for final appeal beyond that limitation. The circumstances that would reverse the determination are limited to the case where the classification of the case changes, or where which subparagraph the submitted grounds fall under is newly specified. Undetermined items are left undetermined.
6.6The Strongest Counterargument and the Answer
Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides: "Article 3 (Final Appeal and Reappeal) A final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court against a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance rendered by the collegiate panel of the main court of the District Court in a small claims case only in any of the following cases: 1. Where the judgment on whether a statute, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act is unjust; 2. Where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered." The 'small claims case' referred to here indicates the classification of cases separately prescribed by the special Act, and 'a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance' means the final determination rendered by the collegiate panel of the main court of the District Court. 'Final appeal' and 'reappeal' are the respective methods of challenging a judgment and a ruling, and the expression 'only in any of the following cases' means that one cannot go to the Supreme Court on any grounds other than these two.
Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act permits only '1. Where the judgment on whether a statute, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act is unjust' and '2. Where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered.' What these two subparagraphs indicate are, respectively, the case where the judgment on violation of the Constitution or of an Act is unjust and the case where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered. In other words, the restriction on final appeals in small claims cases means the grounds for challenging a judgment before the Supreme Court narrowed by the special Act, and the statutory text does not make a demand to re-evaluate the facts lawfully determined by the judgment of the court below a permissible ground. The conclusion that the same grounds for final appeal cannot be used for every case follows from the very reason that this provision limits the channel of challenge in small claims cases to two grounds.
The reason one must distinguish here between the 'general grounds for final appeal' and the 'permissible grounds for small claims cases' is that the two address different objects. The general grounds for final appeal address broad grievances including the rightness or wrongness of fact-finding, whereas the permissible grounds under Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act are limited to the case where the judgment on violation of the Constitution or of an Act is unjust and the case where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered. This distinction concerns not the question of whether a judgment is right or wrong but the question of through which channel a challenge may be brought, and it connects with the definition that the restriction on final appeals in small claims cases means the grounds for challenging a judgment before the Supreme Court narrowed by the special Act.
The counterargument that even a small amount may be a decisive loss to the party squarely targets the inconvenience of this distinction. It is hard to deny that, even for a party to a small claims case, when the fact-finding is wrong, a substantive error remains owing to the restriction on review of issues of law. Even where the amount is small, the court below's decision not to believe a witness may change the outcome, and to the party that difference may be decisive. Yet notwithstanding this counterargument, one cannot transfer the general grounds for final appeal as they stand into the permissible grounds for small claims cases. For even if one does not erase the loss and inconvenience the counterargument points out, one cannot read the channel beyond the two grounds prescribed in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act more broadly.
On this fact alone one cannot determine whether it falls under subparagraph 1 of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, namely 'where the judgment on whether a statute, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act is unjust.' Nor can it be confirmed from this scene alone whether the effect of the violation of statutes and regulations, and the violation of statutes and regulations specified in the grounds for final appeal, remain in the record. Accordingly, what can be determined from this scene is only that the grievance over fact-finding must be distinguished from the contention of violation of statutes and regulations, and under which subparagraph to place plaintiff A's contention remains undetermined.
The conclusion this section permits is that the general grounds for final appeal cannot be transferred as they stand into the permissible grounds for small claims cases; what it does not permit is the judgment that, once a case is classified as a small claims case, the permissible grounds of the special Act need not be compared in place of the general grounds for final appeal. Nor is it included in the conclusion of this section that the threshold of the Supreme Court is lowered merely because the amount is small.
6.7The Link to the Application and the Dispositive Part
The answer of the preceding section—that the general grounds for final appeal cannot be transferred as they stand into the permissible grounds for small claims cases—proceeds on the premise that the channel was designed narrowly from the outset. Now the question is how that design actually works. Can the same grounds for final appeal be used for every case? No. Separately limited grounds for final appeal and reappeal apply to small claims cases.
The language of the special Act directly fixes the scope of that limitation. Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act lists: "A final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court against a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance rendered by the collegiate panel of the main court of the District Court in a small claims case only in any of the following cases." Here 'small claims case' indicates the subject, 'a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance' indicates the act concerned, and 'only in any of the following cases' indicates the condition of permissibility.
The language specifies the permissible grounds in two items. Subparagraph 1 of Article 3 is "where the judgment on whether a statute, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act is unjust," and subparagraph 2 is "where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered." This narrowing is not meant to bury minor errors; it is a stage determination binding the object of examination to judgments of violation of statutes and regulations and conflicts with precedent. Accordingly, a demand to view the facts differently and a contention that a violation of statutes and regulations occurred in the process of fact-finding must be distinguished.
Nor does this do away with the point that, when the fact-finding is wrong, a substantive error may remain owing to the limitation on review of issues of law. Where the permissible grounds are narrow, what is explained is not that the residual inconvenience is denied, but that one must first compare whether the case falls under the two kinds of determination permitted by Article 3.
What can be confirmed from this scene is only the grievance concerning the fact-finding of the court below, and neither a violation of statutes and regulations affecting the judgment nor a conflict with the precedents of the Supreme Court has yet been specified. Under these conditions, whether grounds for examination under Article 3 have been submitted remains undetermined.
Accordingly, what opens the door of the Supreme Court in a small claims case is not the size of the matter but whether a determination of violation of statutes and regulations going beyond the facts lawfully determined by the court has been specified and submitted. A demand confined to a fresh evaluation of facts does not cross this threshold, nor does it convert the residual grievance into a legitimate counterargument. Only where the kind of contention is not clear is it left in an undetermined state, and the narrow conclusion is not broadened by filling in unverified items.
6.8The Scope This Section Undertakes
The question to be put at once in this scene is clear. Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act sets the textual standard for that question. The provision declares: "A final appeal or reappeal may be taken to the Supreme Court against a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance rendered by the collegiate panel of the main court of the District Court in a small claims case only in any of the following cases." The subject indicated by this sentence is a party who wishes to challenge a judgment before the Supreme Court; the act is a final appeal or reappeal; and the condition is limited to the case falling under one of the grounds in the following subparagraphs. The object, too, is bound to a judgment, or a ruling or order, of the second instance rendered by the collegiate panel of the main court of the District Court.
The subparagraphs that follow state those limited grounds in two. Subparagraph 1 is "where the judgment on whether a statute, order, rule, or disposition violates the Constitution and whether an order, rule, or disposition violates an Act is unjust," and subparagraph 2 is "where a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court has been rendered" (Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act). These grounds all target the case where the assessment of unconstitutionality or illegality contained in the determination of the court below is wrong or departs from precedent. In other words, the restriction on final appeals in small claims cases means the grounds for challenging a judgment before the Supreme Court narrowed by the special Act, and that narrowing operates in the direction of not accepting a claim asking that the facts themselves be re-examined. A grievance over facts lawfully determined and a contention of violation of statutes and regulations in the process of determining those facts must therefore be distinguished.
If a finding of fact were overturned, the disadvantage that small difference leaves with the party would be by no means small, and if such an error of fact were blocked by the threshold of review on issues of law and left uncorrected, a substantive sense of injustice would remain as it is. One cannot describe the system with that inconvenience erased. This is because the door that Article 3 leaves open is limited to the two types—the case where the assessment of unconstitutionality or illegality in the determination of the court below is unjust, and the case of a judgment contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court—and a demand to re-evaluate the finding on witness credibility is not automatically placed within those types.
Returning to the synthetic scene, plaintiff A's grievance has not yet been determined to fall under any type. Merely because he regards it as unjust that the court below did not believe the witness, one cannot immediately view that credibility finding as an unconstitutional or unlawful judgment or as contrary to precedent. Rather, the present state, in which it is not distinguished whether his contention is a simple dispute of fact or a contention that a statute was violated in the process of rejecting the witness's statement, remains undetermined. The determination record must examine together the fact-finding of the court below, the grounds for final appeal, the effect of the violation of statutes and regulations, and the classification of the case under the special Act, yet from the scene alone it cannot be confirmed which of these items has been filled in and how. Accordingly, what this section establishes is limited to the conditional distinction that, if a case is classified as a small claims case, the permissible grounds of the special Act must be compared in place of the general grounds for final appeal.
Therefore, the conclusion this section permits lies within a clear line. One list of grounds for final appeal cannot be applied as it stands to every case, and small claims cases are subject to separately limited grounds for final appeal and reappeal. This distinction says only that, irrespective of the size of the actual error, the threshold to be applied varies with the classification of the case; it neither asserts that plaintiff A's contention already falls under a particular subparagraph of Article 3 nor regards his loss as made good.
6.9Application of the Text of the Provisions and the Holdings of Precedents
법문이 원심판결이 적법하게 확정한 사실을 대상으로 하므로 사실인정에 대한 불만과 적법성 문제는 나누어서 살핀다. 이 장면에서 상고심이 다룰 법령 위반이 무엇인지 특정되지 않았다. 소액사건 상고 제한이란 특별법이 좁힌 대법원 불복 사유를 뜻한다. 그 문턱의 문언이 상고심의 법령 위반 심리에 어떻게 적용되는지를 정하는 것이 이번 물음이다.
그 각 호는 법률, 명령, 규칙 또는 처분의 헌법 위반 여부와 명령, 규칙 또는 처분의 법률 위반 여부에 대한 판단이 부당한 경우, 그리고 대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 경우로 한정한다(소액사건심판법 제3조). 이 문언이 지시하는 주체는 소액사건의 제2심 재판에 불복하려는 당사자이고, 행위는 대법원에 대한 상고 또는 재항고의 제기이며, 조건은 열거된 사유 가운데 어느 하나에 해당하는 판단이 있어야 한다는 점이다.
위 문언과 이 절의 결론을 연결하는 것은 문언의 한정이 심리의 대상까지 가른다는 점이다. 상고심의 법령 위반이란 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반이나 해당 특별법의 상고사유를 특정해 적법하게 제출된 경우를 가리키고, 이와 대조되는 것은 적법하게 확정된 사실을 새로 평가해 달라는 요구만 남는 경우다. 앞 단계에서 사실인정 불만과 적법성 문제를 나누어 살피기로 한 까닭이 이 구별에 있다. 판결이유의 전개나 이 조문에 열거되지 않은 사유로 판단 근거를 넓히지 않는 것도 같은 이유에서다. 원문 문언이 허용하는 좁은 판정 근거와 그 밖의 일반 상고이유는 서로 섞이지 않는다.
이런 한정에는 뚜렷한 불편이 따라붙는다. 적은 금액이라도 당사자에게는 결정적 손해일 수 있고, 사실인정이 틀렸을 때 법률심 제한 때문에 실질적인 오류가 남는다. 그 손실과 불편을 부정하지 않더라도 일반 상고이유를 그대로 소액사건의 허용 사유로 옮길 수는 없다. 앞서 확인한 문언이 각 호의 사유를 열거한 채 '경우에만'이라는 조건을 달아 불복 통로를 좁혀 두었기 때문이다. 저자의 적용은 당사자의 손해 크기가 이 문턱을 넓히지 않는다는 것이고, 이는 조문 문언의 평가일 뿐 별도의 법정 의무가 새로 생기는 것은 아니다.
합성 장면으로 돌아가면, 원고 A는 증인의 신빙성을 인정하지 않은 원심 판단을 억울해할 뿐 어떤 법규 위반인지 특정하지 않았다. 이 사실은 적법하게 확정된 사실을 새로 평가해 달라는 요구에 머무는지, 아니면 사실인정 과정에서 법령 위반이 있었다는 주장인지 분명하지 않다. 판단 근거의 종류는 원심 사실인정, 상고이유서, 법령 위반의 영향, 특별법상 사건 분류이다. 만약 소액사건으로 분류되는 것이 확인되면 일반 상고사유 대신 특별법의 허용 사유를 대조하게 된다. 소액사건으로 분류된 사실 자체도 이 장면에는 지정되어 있지 않으므로, 이 사건에 어떤 사유가 맞는지는 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 해당 원문 문언만을 상고심의 법령 위반 심리의 판정 근거로 삼고 판결이유나 열거되지 않은 항으로 확장하지 않는다는 것이다. 허용되지 않는 결론은 일반 상고이유를 그대로 소액사건의 허용 사유로 옮기는 것과, 사실인정의 억울함만으로 법령 위반 심리의 문이 열린다고 보는 것이다. 이 경계 안에서 원고 A의 주장은 어떤 법규 위반인지 특정되어야 심리 대상이 될 수 있고, 특정되지 않은 채 남은 불만은 이 절의 판정 근거가 되지 못한다. 자료가 부족한 항목은 미확정으로 남을 뿐 곧바로 구제 불능으로 바뀌는 것도 아니다.
6.10Fine Distinctions Within the Stage
앞의 분석에서 법문은 원심판결이 적법하게 확정한 사실을 대상으로 하므로 사실인정 불만과 적법성 문제를 나누어야 한다는 결론을 전제로 한다. 이 장면에서 지금 물어야 하는 것은 상고심의 법령 위반 심리 안에서 다시 나누어 판정할 부분이 무엇인가이다.
이 물음에 답하는 원문은 다음과 같다. 소액사건심판법 제3조는 “소액사건에 대한 지방법원 본원 합의부의 제2심 판결이나 결정·명령에 대해서는 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에만 대법원에 상고 또는 재항고를 할 수 있다”라고 정하고, 그 사유로 “1. 법률·명령·규칙 또는 처분의 헌법 위반 여부와 명령·규칙 또는 처분의 법률 위반 여부에 대한 판단이 부당한 경우”와 “2. 대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 경우”를 든다. 이 문언이 가리키는 주체는 지방법원 본원 합의부의 제2심 판결이나 결정 또는 명령에 불복하는 당사자이고, 행위는 대법원에 대한 상고 또는 재항고이며, 조건은 열거한 두 사유 중 하나에 해당하는 경우로 한정된다.
이 문언에 근거해 확정한 것은 소액사건에는 별도로 한정된 상고 또는 재항고 사유가 적용된다는 점이다. 따라서 이번 판정에서 구별해야 하는 두 단계는 어떤 사실이 적법하게 확정되었는가와 그 확정 과정이나 결과에 법령 위반이 있는가이다. 앞의 것은 사실인정의 문제이고 뒤의 것은 심리할 법령 위반 사유의 문제이다. 이 둘을 섞으면 사실인정 불만이 곧 법령 위반 사유처럼 다뤄지지만, 제3조는 제2심의 판단이 위반 여부에 대한 판단으로 한정된 사유에 대해서만 통로를 열어 둔다.
단계 안의 세부 구분을 이렇게 한정할 때 겨냥되는 손실이 있다. 작은 청구액의 소송에서 사실인정이 틀렸다면, 법률심의 제한 때문에 실질적인 오류가 그대로 남는 것처럼 보인다. 이 손실과 불편을 지우지 않으면서도 답은 유지된다. 제3조가 두 사유로 좁혀 둔 통로를 넓히면 특별법이 정한 한정이 무의미해지기 때문이다. 다만 이 답이 사실인정의 억울함을 무조건 돌릴 수 없다고 선언하는 것은 아니다. 단정할 수 있는 것은 좁힌 사유에 해당하지 않는다고 해서 일반 사유로 받아들일 수 없다는 범위뿐이다.
장면에 나온 사실만으로 대조하면 원고 A의 호소는 증인을 믿지 않은 원심의 사실인정에 대한 불만이다. 어떤 법규 위반인지 아직 구별하지 않았으므로, 이 장면이 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반 또는 해당 특별법의 상고사유를 특정해 적법하게 제출한 경우에 해당한다고 말할 수 없다. 적법하게 확정된 사실을 새로 평가해 달라는 요구만 있고 심리할 법령 위반 사유가 없는 경우에 해당한다고 단정하기도 아직 이르다. 사실 다툼인지 사실인정 과정의 법령 위반 주장인지 분명하지 않으므로 미확정으로 남는다.
정리하면 이 절이 허용하는 결론은 단계 안의 세부 구분이 작동하는 경우, 막히는 경우, 미확정인 경우에 명시한 조건에 한정한다는 것이다. 허용하지 않는 것은 사실인정 불만을 법령 위반 사유로 바꾸어 통과시키는 것이나, 소액사건에 일반 상고이유를 그대로 적용하는 것, 그리고 기록에 없는 사실을 채워 넣어 판정을 확정하는 것이다. 어떤 통로가 열렸는가를 판정하는 것과 실제로 지급, 인도, 회수가 이루어졌는가를 확인하는 것은 구별되며, 이번 문단은 뒤의 것을 다루지 않는다.
6.11Synthesis of Effectiveness, Blockage, and Undetermination
앞 분석 단계의 결론에 따르면 상고심은 원심판결이 적법하게 확정한 사실을 대상으로 한다. 이 장면에서 그는 사실인정이 잘못되었다는 불만은 표현했으나 그것이 어떤 법령 위반에 해당하는지는 밝히지 않았다. 상고심이 그 주장을 받아 심리할 것인지의 여부는, 단순한 사실 평가 불만인지 확정 과정의 법령 위반이 주장된 것인지에 따라 달라진다. 앞 절이 사실인정 불만과 적법성 문제를 나누어 보아야 한다고 한 까닭이 여기에 있다. 지금의 물음은 그 구별이 상고심 심리의 열림, 차단, 미확정으로 어떻게 정리되는가이다.
이 절에서 다루는 법문은 소액사건의 불복 통로를 별도로 좁혀 두었다. 같은 조문은 그 허용 사유로 “법률·명령·규칙 또는 처분의 헌법 위반 여부와 명령·규칙 또는 처분의 법률 위반 여부에 대한 판단이 부당한 경우”와 “대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 경우”만을 든다(소액사건심판법 제3조). 이 문언이 가리키는 주체는 소액사건에 대한 제2심 판결이나 결정 또는 명령을 받은 당사자이고, 행위는 대법원에 상고 또는 재항고이며, 조건은 나열된 사유 가운데 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우로 한정되어 있다.
이 문언과 상고심 심리의 열림을 연결하면 두 단계가 뚜렷이 갈린다. 첫째, 어떤 사건인지가 정해져야 한다. 만약 소액사건으로 분류되는 것이 확인되면 일반 사건의 상고이유를 그대로 쓰는 것이 아니라 특별법이 좁힌 허용 사유에 맞추어 사유를 특정하고 적법하게 제출하는 것이 열림의 조건이 된다. 둘째, 그 사유가 무엇인지가 특정되어야 한다. 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반이라거나 위 조문의 각 호에 든 판단이 부당하거나 판례에 상반된다는 사유가 밝혀져야 심리할 대상이 생긴다. 반면 적법하게 확정된 사실을 새로 평가해 달라는 요구만 있고 심리할 법령 위반 사유가 적법하게 제출되지 않았다면 통로는 막힌다. 사실 확정의 적법성과 사실 평가의 불만을 나누는 이유는, 바로 이 두 단계가 서로 다른 물음에 답하기 때문이다.
그 구별이 남기는 손실을 외면하면 안 된다. 소액사건 당사자에게 지방법원 본원 합의부의 제2심에서 사실인정이 잘못되었다면, 그 금액의 크기와 무관하게 그에게 남는 오류는 무시할 수 없을지 모른다. 법률심이 사실심의 확정 사실을 그대로 두는 한 실질적인 오류가 그대로 남는다는 반론도 같은 자리에서 작동한다. 조문이 나열한 사유를 벗어난 상고를 받아들일 권한을 이 법문에서 찾을 수 없고, 그 자리를 사실 재심사로 채우면 오히려 조문이 그은 선이 지워진다. 반론이 지적한 불이익을 인정하면서도, 그 불이익이 이 통로의 열림 조건을 넓혀 주는 것은 아니라는 것이 앞의 답이다.
합성 장면에서 이 물음에 관해 확인되는 사실은 많지 않다. 원고 A는 증인의 신빙성을 부정한 원심의 판단에 불만을 품고 있으나, 어떤 법규 위반인지 아직 구별하지 않았다. 아직은 확정된 사실의 재평가를 구하는 것인지, 증거 채택이나 신빙성 판단 과정에서 법령 위반이 있었는지를 다투는 것인지 분명하지 않다. 따라서 미확정으로 남는다. 만일 이 사건이 소액사건으로 분류된다면, 일반 상고사유 대신 특별법의 허용 사유를 대조한다. 다만 장면에는 소액사건 해당 여부도, 법령 위반의 구체적 내용도 정해져 있지 않다. 그래서 사실 다툼인지 사실인정 과정의 법령 위반 주장인지는 기록과 상고이유서를 보아야 가려질 사항으로 남는다.
이 절이 허용하는 결론은 좁다. 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반이나 해당 특별법의 상고사유가 특정되어 적법하게 제출되었다면 심리의 문이 열린다. 반대로 적법하게 확정된 사실의 새 평가만 요구되고 심리할 법령 위반 사유가 없다면 문은 막힌다. 두 경우 사이에 끼어 사실 다툼인지 사실인정 과정의 법령 위반 주장인지 가려지지 않으면 미확정으로 남겨 두고, 확정된 사실의 적법성을 다투는 주장인지 보아 판정을 미룬다. 다만 여기까지의 구별이 상고심이 내릴 결과를 뜻하지는 않는다.
6.12이 권의 결론과 남는 물음
앞 절에서 상고심의 법령 위반 심리가 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반 또는 해당 특별법의 상고사유를 특정해 적법하게 제출한 경우에는 작동하고, 적법하게 확정된 사실을 새로 평가해 달라는 요구만 있고 심리할 법령 위반 사유가 없는 경우에는 막히며, 사실 다툼인지 사실인정 과정의 법령 위반 주장인지 분명하지 않은 경우에는 미확정으로 남는다고 정리한 바 있다. 그 구별이 그대로 통용된다면, 모든 사건에 같은 상고이유를 쓸 수 있는가?
소액사건심판법 제3조는 "소액사건에 대한 지방법원 본원 합의부의 제2심 판결이나 결정·명령에 대해서는 다음 각 호의 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우에만 대법원에 상고 또는 재항고를 할 수 있다."라고 선을 긋고, 그 사유로 "1. 법률·명령·규칙 또는 처분의 헌법 위반 여부와 명령·규칙 또는 처분의 법률 위반 여부에 대한 판단이 부당한 경우"와 "2. 대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 경우"만을 열거한다. 여기서 소액사건 상고 제한은 특별법이 좁힌 대법원 불복 사유를 뜻하며, 이 문언이 다루는 주체는 소액사건의 제2심 판결이나 결정 또는 명령에 불복하려는 당사자이고, 그 행위는 대법원에 대한 상고 또는 재항고이며, 조건은 열거된 두 사유 가운데 어느 하나에 해당하는 경우로 한정된다.
이 문언과 앞 절의 결론이 만나는 자리에서 소액사건에는 별도로 한정된 상고 또는 재항고 사유가 적용된다. 판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반이나 특별법상 상고사유를 특정해 적법하게 제출한 경우가 심리의 문을 여는 작동 조건이라면, 어떤 사건에서 그 사유를 세는가는 별개의 문제로 놓여야 한다. 일반 상고이유를 그대로 소액사건의 허용 사유로 옮길 수 없으므로, 사건이 소액사건으로 분류되었는지 먼저 확인하고 나서야 어느 목록의 사유를 대조할지가 정해진다. 두 단계를 섞으면 열거된 사유가 아닌 것으로 문을 두드리는 일이 생긴다.
이 한정이 노리는 절약은 행정의 편의에 가깝고, 반론은 그 비용이 가장 약한 자리에 떨어진다고 지적한다. 소액사건 상고 제한은 특별법이 좁힌 대법원 불복 사유라는 정의 자체가 그 자리를 좁혀 놓았고, 반론이 지적한 불이익은 지워지지 않고 남는다.
판결에 영향을 미친 법령 위반을 특정해 제출했다면 심리가 작동할 수 있지만, 적법하게 확정된 사실을 새로 평가해 달라는 요구만 남아 있다면 앞 절 기준으로는 문이 막힌다. 만약 소액사건으로 분류되는 것이 확인되면 일반 상고사유 대신 특별법의 허용 사유를 대조하게 되므로, 어느 목록을 펼칠지가 그 분류에 달려 있음이 드러난다. 다만 장면이 실제 사건의 재현이 아니고 어떤 법규 위반이 주장되는지 특정되지 않았으므로, 이 사안이 두 사유 중 어느 쪽에 놓일지는 미확정으로 남는다.
이 절이 확인하는 것은 소액사건의 대법원 불복 통로가 별도로 한정된 사유 목록에 묶여 있다는 것이고, 그 문턱을 넘지 못한 사정이 곧바로 패소나 회수 불능을 뜻하지는 않는다. 반면 일반 상고이유를 그대로 소액사건의 허용 사유로 옮기면, 특별법이 좁힌 불복 사유라는 이 절의 정의가 무너진다. 다만 원심 사실인정, 상고이유서, 법령 위반의 영향, 특별법상 사건 분류라는 기록 가운데 무엇이 확인되었는지는 여기서 정하지 않았고, 실제 사건의 승패나 이행 결과도 확정하지 않았다. 이 한정이 통로의 문턱을 정하는 데서 그치고, 그 문턱을 넘은 뒤의 결과는 별도로 물어야 한다. 파기환송은 최종 승소인가?
Statutes referred to
Questions left open
- 법률심이 사실오인의 중대성을 받아들일 통로는 어디에 있는가?
- 간략한 상고기각 이유가 접근권에 주는 부담은 무엇인가?
- 소액사건의 제한된 상고사유를 어떻게 설명할 것인가?