The lower court rejected the Defendant’s substitute act and expression agency assertion on behalf of the Plaintiff on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to prove that F was a person F was entitled to designate a commodity price payment account or to make settlement agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff, and that there is no evidence to prove that F was granted the basic power to conclude the instant contract by the Plaintiff, and that it is difficult to recognize that F was a reasonable ground to believe that F was entitled to determine the method of payment on behalf of the Plaintiff and to make settlement

Examining the record and relevant legal principles, the lower court’s measure is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

2. The decision is made ex officio with respect to damages for delay.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) provides that the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to a case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation until the judgment of fact-finding which declares the existence of the obligation is rendered. Here, when it is deemed reasonable for the obligor to dispute on the existence or absence or scope of the obligation, it shall be interpreted that there is a reasonable ground for the obligor’s assertion as to the existence or absence or scope of the obligation. As to the judgment of the first instance, which cited the Plaintiff’s claim, the first instance court which accepted the Defendant’s appeal and rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff was rejected by the Defendant before remand, and the judgment against the Plaintiff was remanded as a result of the Plaintiff’s appeal, and thereafter, the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim as referred to in