[2] The meaning of "a case where it is deemed appropriate for an obligor to dispute the existence or scope of an obligation" under Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[2] Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings ("the case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation" means the case where there are reasonable grounds for the obligor's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Thus, the issue of whether it is not reasonable to dispute above is the fact-finding and evaluation of the court as to the case in question.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 were prepared by coercion by threatening the plaintiff and the non-party No. 1 who was the husband of the plaintiff and the non-party No. 1's non-party No. 1 by threatening the non-party No. 1.

In light of the records, we affirm the above recognition and judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Even though a company's act of assuming debt is subject to the approval of the board of directors as it constitutes a company's own transaction under Article 398 of the Commercial Act, since the purport of the above provision is to prevent the company and its shareholders from causing unexpected damages, the company shall not avoid its liability on the ground that there was no approval of the board of directors (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da16310 delivered on March 31, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if Nonparty 1, the representative director of the defendant company, had the defendant company take over his personal debt, this constitutes a company's own transaction, which is not approved by the board of directors, and thus null and void, based on the evidence of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the shares of the defendant company were actually owned by the representative director and Nonparty 11, a shareholder, who are fully responsible for the management of the company as the founder and therefore, it can be deemed that the consent of all shareholders was obtained, and thus the defendant company cannot avoid its liability on the ground that the approval of the board

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to one company, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. On the third ground for appeal

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that "if it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute about the existence or scope of the obligation," refers to the time when there is a reasonable ground for the obligor's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Thus, the issue of whether it is reasonable to dispute as above is the fact-finding and evaluation of the court as to the case in question (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 86Meu1876 delivered on May 26, 1987).

According to the records, the judgment of the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's assertion and accepted the plaintiff's claim of this case, and ordered to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and also dismissed the defendant's appeal for the same reason. In light of the above legal principles and the progress of this case as shown in the records, the judgment of the court below that added damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. There is no error of law

4. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)