[2] The case reversing the part of the judgment below on the late payment damages

[2] The case where the court of final appeal reverses and renders a decision on the delayed payment of damages

1. According to the records, the judgment of the court of first instance shall be 104,457,240 won in total as property damage and consolation money from the traffic accident of this case and 104,457,240 won in total from the date of occurrence of the above accident to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, 5% per annum from January 19, 193 to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, 46,99,96,50 won in total as property damage and consolation money, and 46,96,50 won in total from the date of the judgment of the court of first instance to the date of the judgment of first instance, 5% per annum from the day after the day of first instance to the date of second half of the judgment of the court of first instance to the date of first instance, 5% per annum from the day of first instance to the date of second half of the judgment below to the date of second half of 9, 196.

2. However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted part of the plaintiff's appeal and accepted 60,651,238 won, which is the principal of the plaintiff's damage caused by the traffic accident of this case, which is the amount of 46,96,550 won accepted by the judgment of the court of first instance, and ordered the payment of 60,651,238 won, including the amount of award in the court of first instance, for the delay damages, to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform until the date of the judgment of the court below, since January 19, 193, which is the date of the above accident, from January 19, 1993 to December 13, 196, from the date of the judgment of the court below, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases, from the following day to the date of full payment.

3. On the other hand, regarding the amount cited additionally in the original judgment among the amounts cited in the original judgment, it is reasonable that the defendant raised an objection to the existence and scope of the obligation. However, as to the principal of damages cited by the first instance judgment, it cannot be deemed that the defendant raised an objection to the existence or scope of the obligation in the original judgment, which was maintained as it was, and even if not, it cannot be said that the defendant had a considerable reason to resist at the original judgment. Thus, the court below's failure to apply the interest rate stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the above Special Cases to the amount cited in the first instance judgment from the date of sentencing to the date of sentencing after the date of sentencing of the original judgment cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above special cases, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the amount of damages cited in the first instance judgment, which is the entire judgment of the first instance court, which cited the damages for delay.

4. Therefore, the part against the plaintiff as to delay damages in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and since this case is sufficient to be judged directly by the members, it shall be decided in accordance with Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act. As recognized by the court below, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60,651,238 won including property losses and consolation money, and damages for delay after January 19, 193, which is the date of the accident. As seen in the judgment on the above grounds of appeal, it is reasonable for the defendant to raise a dispute as to the existence and scope of each obligation, among the above amounts, which are recognized as appropriate for the defendant to raise a dispute as to the existence and scope of each obligation, 46,96,50 won equivalent to the 46,96,50 won without the defendant's appeal, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, until February 7, 195, the remaining 13,654,68 won additionally cited in the court below's judgment, as per annum 25% per annum.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)