2. The Defendant’s conjunctive assertion on the Defendant’s claim on the extinction of prescription period, as long as each of the instant claims on delay damages is in the nature of damages, the period of extinctive prescription is applied to the claim on damages for tort, and thus, the claim on damages for delay incurred three years prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit expired by prescription. However, the damages for delay incurred after the due date for payment for the monetary obligation is paid as compensation for damages caused by delay in the discharge of the monetary obligation. As such, the period of extinctive prescription is equal to that for the original claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da2940, Mar. 14, 20

Meanwhile, on the other hand, the payment date of March 18, 2005, which is the date of the establishment of the lawsuit for the payment of the instant case, becomes the date of the purchase price. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 10, 2014, which is the date ten years elapse from the date of the lawsuit for the payment of the construction price, is apparent in fact, and thus, the Defendant’s claim that the instant damages

3. The Plaintiff, as an incidental appeal, filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay calculated by applying the amount of KRW 36,862,738 with respect to each of the damages for delay incurred until January 12, 2015 as the principal bond, with respect to the amount as set forth above, 20% per annum from the day following the day on which a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in the first instance is served until September 30, 2015 and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

The damages for delay of the Pecuniary obligation constitutes the damages for delay of the monetary obligation, and the obligation for which the due date is not fixed, and the obligor becomes final and conclusive.