The damages for delay shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below held that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 1, 2012 to the date of full payment, as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”), since the Defendant was based on the notarial deed already invalidated and collected KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff’s deposit account, and there is no legal ground for collection between the Defendant and the Plaintiff.

However, according to Article 3(1) and (2) of the Litigation Promotion Act, the interest rate for delay under Article 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Promotion Act may be applied from the day following the day when the complaint was served to the defendant or from the day after the ruling of fact-finding court is rendered. According to Article 748(2) of the Civil Act, in returning unjust enrichment, a malicious beneficiary shall return the received interest with interest added thereto. The applicable interest rate is 5% per annum, unless otherwise provided by other Acts or agreed by the parties.

If so, the court below should have examined whether the amount that the plaintiff claims additionally against the principal of unjust enrichment constitutes damages for delay under the Civil Procedure Promotion Act or interest on unjust enrichment before the judgment of fact-finding court is reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the obligation, or whether the defendant is a malicious beneficiary, and should have calculated damages for delay or interest and statutory interest rate in accordance with the above legal principles.

Nevertheless, the lower court, without failing to exhaust all these deliberations, held that the Defendant should pay 20% interest per annum as provided in the Litigation Promotion Act from the date of unjust enrichment to the date of complete payment. In so doing, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations and refund damages for delay or unjust enrichment under the Litigation Promotion Act.