B. Whether it is permissible to order the payment of damages for delay prior to the base point of the current pricing in respect of actual import damages

C. The scope of application of statutory interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings in a case where the cited amount of the judgment of the court of first instance is reduced in

B. Since damage liability due to a tort occurs at the time of the tort and the due date arrives, even in cases of passive and affirmative damages that may occur in the future, the current price of the tort shall be the base period for calculating the current price of the tort, and in principle, the order for additional payment of damages from the time of the tort to the time of the occurrence of the future damages is to be paid in addition to the damages from the time of the tort. However, when calculating damages from the time of the tort at which the interim interest is deducted from the time of the closure of arguments at the fact-finding court as of the time of the tort to the time of the occurrence of each future damages, the damages from the time of the tort shall be calculated by deducting the interim interest from the time of the occurrence of the damages from the time of the tort at which the interim interest is deducted from the time of the closure of arguments at the fact-finding court as of the time of the tort or from the time of the commencement of arguments at the fact-finding court as of the time of the tort, the damages from delay shall not be allowed as of the time of the above.

C. In a case where an appellate court accepted a defendant's appeal in a lawsuit claiming damages due to a tort and reduces the cited amount of the judgment of the first instance, barring special circumstances, the legal interest rate under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall be applied to damages for delay, as it is deemed reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation even after the judgment of the first instance is rendered and the appellate court

1. In a case where an intermediary interest is deducted pursuant to the Fmanmanial Calculation Act, if the interim interest deduction period exceeds 240 months, if the realization rate of a short-term pension on the monthly numerical value table exceeds 414 months, then if the present price is calculated by applying it as it is, it would be higher than the amount that the present amount would be paid to the victim, thereby making the victim receive excessive compensation. Thus, to prevent this, 240 shall be applied in entirety, regardless of whether the realization rate of a short-term pension on the numerical value table is high.

It is the party member (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da15871, Jul. 10, 1992).

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below calculated the amount of lost income resulting from the traffic accident of this case, which occurred on August 8, 1972 by the Act on the Hofmanal Calculation, as of May 9, 198, and ① for the 15-month period from August 8, 1992 to November 7, 1993: 506,975 won (Monthly Income)x 0.5308 (Number 15-month Loss Rate) = 3,907,50 won, and ② for the 59-month period from August 8, 1992 to May 7, 1993, the court below calculated the total amount of damages of 14.5205 (Number 15-month Loss Rate) = 3,907,50 won, and ② for the 465-day period from August 7, 2032 to the 59-day loss rate of 205 x 3085 x 3645 x365 m2845 m26.36

2. The claim for damages due to an illegal act occurs at the time of the illegal act and the due date comes. Thus, even in the case of passive and affirmative damages that may occur in the future, the current price of the illegal act shall be the base date for calculating the current price, and in principle, another order for additional payment of damages from the time of the illegal act to the time of the occurrence of the future damages. However, the current price shall be calculated by deducting the lost income damages that may occur thereafter from the above time to the time of the occurrence of each future damages from the above time of the closure of the arguments at the fact-finding court at the time of the illegal act, and the damages for delay shall not be permitted unless it exceeds the original method, or is inconsistent with it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da38444, Feb. 25, 1994). However, in calculating the current price at any time before and after the date of the closure of arguments at the fact-finding court after the illegal act, the damages for delay from the above time before the above time shall be less deducted or less than the intermediate damages (see).

However, as seen earlier, the calculation method of the lost income of the court below was made after the date of the accident in this case, and it is clear that the plaintiff, who was before the date of the closing of argument in the court below, calculated the present price by deducting the intermediate interest from the date of the age of majority. Thus, even though the damages for delay should have been ordered after the date of the age of majority, the court below judged that the damages for delay should have been calculated in the above way, and there is a duty to pay the damages for delay from the date of the accident

3. In a case where an appellate court accepted a defendant's appeal in a lawsuit claiming damages due to a tort and reduces the cited amount of the judgment of the first instance, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable for the defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation even after the decision of the first instance court was rendered and the appellate court rendered a judgment, and thus, it is a view that the legal interest rate under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings should be applied to the cited amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da2977, Aug. 27, 191)

If the court below makes a correction of the error under the above 1. 1. and calculated the correct amount, it is clear in the record that the actual income amount will be reduced, and the total amount of the cited amount will be reduced compared to the cited amount of the court of first instance. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which indicate that the court below is liable to pay damages at the rate of 5% per annum for damages from May 9, 1988 to October 16, 192, which is the date of the first instance judgment, the remainder of the accident, which committed the error under the above 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. (However, until May 1, 1994, which is the date of the court below's decision, the date of the court below's decision, which is 93,372, which is the date of the first instance judgment's decision).

4. Meanwhile, according to the petition of appeal filed by the defendant, the defendant is dissatisfied with the part exceeding 53,074,970 won (59,387,391 won - 53,074,970 won - 6,312,421 won) out of the principal amount of damages as cited by the court below as the appeal of this case and the whole damages for delay as to the principal amount of damages. In comparison with the grounds of appeal, the part against the principal amount of damages in this case is clearly the purport of protesting against the part against the principal amount of damages. Meanwhile, according to the records, the court below calculated the amount of damages for lost income in this case as 72,683,256 won, and calculated the amount of damages for lost income in this case as 50,878,279 won (72,68,256x. 7) out of the amount of damages in this case, the court below ordered the defendant to pay damages for lost income in this case as principal amount exceeding 50,845,5754,75485.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is with merit as seen above, and the judgment of the court below is reversed within the scope of the above objection, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)