2016Da22844, damages

1. K non-life insurance company;

2.The UNFCCCFFFF damage insurance company (the trade name before change): 10 10 10 10 10 1

Next Bosch Rexroth Insurance Co., Ltd.)

3. Special post office Pension Service Agency;

1. Multi-user Asset Management Co., Ltd. (the trade name before changing: mountain-style asset management week;

Food Company)

2. Es securities company;

Supreme Court Decision 2014Da15996 Decided November 12, 2015

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na30512 Decided April 22, 2016

September 8, 2016

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the judgment is modified as follows.

A. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff KF Life Insurance Co., Ltd. 866,151,438 won, Plaintiff Vienna Loss Insurance Co., Ltd. 500,928,330 won, Plaintiff Special Post Office Pension Service, 248,066,691 won, and each of them, 5% per annum from September 29, 201 to April 22, 2016, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

2. Of the total litigation costs, 60% is borne by the Plaintiffs, and 40% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter "the Act") provides that where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation until the judgment of fact-finding court declaring the existence of the obligation is rendered, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to a reasonable extent. Here, when it is deemed reasonable for the obligor to resist the existence 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 scope of the obligation. As to the judgment of the first instance which accepted the Plaintiff's claim, the Defendant's appeal was accepted before the return of the appeal and the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered. Accordingly, where the judgment accepting the Plaintiff's claim was reversed before the return of the appeal by the Plaintiff, and the judgment accepting the Plaintiff's claim as in the judgment of the first instance as in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant's assertion was accepted by the court below prior to the remand of the judgment, and at least, the Defendant's claim should have a reasonable ground for the existence or scope of the obligation until the judgment is reversed (see, etc.

According to the records, the first instance court acknowledged the Defendants’ damages liability, but limited to 40% of the amount of damages suffered by the Defendants, and the Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff KDF non-life insurance Co., Ltd., 866,151,438 won, Plaintiff BFFFFF liability insurance Co., Ltd., and 500,928,330 won, Plaintiff BFFFFFF liability insurance Co., Ltd., and 248,06,691 won to the Plaintiff Special Post Office Pension Service, and each of them, 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 29 to February 7, 2013, which is sentenced from September 29 to the first instance court, 2013, and 20% from the next day to the date of full payment, and the lower court affirmed the Defendants’ damages liability for delay calculated at a rate of 20% per annum as stipulated under the Act on the Promotion of Litigation, and found the Defendants’ damages liability of the Defendants to be remanded.

Examining the above litigation progress in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that there exists a reasonable ground for the Defendants to dispute whether or not the Defendants are liable to pay damages of this case until the judgment of the court below is rendered after remand. Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the Defendants’ appeal on the ground that it is reasonable to resist the existence or scope of such liability only until the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 3 (2) of the Litigation Promotion Act. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

2. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, but this case is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment, and thus, it is decided to render the judgment in accordance with Article 437 of

Defendants jointly and severally are obligated to jointly and severally pay to Plaintiff KF Life Insurance Co., Ltd. KRW 866,151,438, and KRW 500,928,330, and KRW 248,066,691 to the Plaintiff and the Special Post Office Pension Service Agency, and each of them is deemed reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the Defendants’ obligations from September 29, 201 to September 22, 201, and KRW 5% per annum under the Civil Act until April 22, 2016, and KRW 20% per annum under the Civil Procedure Act until the day following the date of full payment. The Plaintiffs’ claims in this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and each of the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is modified and the costs of the lawsuit are to be borne by all participating Justices’ assent. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-tae, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Cho Jong-hee