1. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) provides that where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist whether the obligor exists or not prior to the adjudication of a fact-finding court declaring the existence of the obligation, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent. Here, when the obligor’s dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation is deemed reasonable, it shall be interpreted that the obligor’s assertion is deemed that there are reasonable grounds for the obligor’s assertion as to the existence or scope of the obligation.

In a case where the defendant's defense against the plaintiff was accepted, and the judgment against the plaintiff was rendered at the court of first instance and before remanding, but the judgment against the plaintiff was reversed as a result of the plaintiff's appeal, and the judgment citing the plaintiff's claim was rendered at the court of original instance after remanding the case, the defendant's assertion was accepted by the court of first instance and the court of original instance before remanding the case. Therefore, it should be deemed that there was a considerable reason for the defendant to resist the existence or scope

2. According to the records, the first instance court accepted the defendant's defense of exemption and rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim regarding the claim for the guarantee debt of this case by the plaintiff (hereinafter "the plaintiff"). The plaintiff appealed, but the appeal was dismissed in the court below prior to remand. As a result of the plaintiff's appeal, the judgment of the court below prior to remand was reversed and the judgment of the court of first instance was reversed, and all of the plaintiff's claims were accepted. Thus, the defendant's assertion was accepted by the court of first instance and the court below prior to remand.