1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for correcting “Plaintiffs” as “A”, since it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Accordingly, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The obligation of the judgment on the cause of the claim falls under the obligation of compensation for damages arising from the delay of the monetary obligation and the obligation for which the due date is not fixed. Thus, the obligor is liable for delay from the time when the obligee receives the claim for performance with respect to the obligation

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 1,490,00,000 per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 26, 2013 to April 28, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, to the Plaintiff, for the remaining interest and damages for delay on the loan of this case as stated in the following table, barring any special circumstance. In light of the above facts and legal principles, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

Meanwhile, from April 26, 2013, the day following the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, the Plaintiff asserted damages for delay pursuant to the interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. However, if the obligor asserted in the first instance trial by disputing the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, even if such assertion was rejected in the appellate trial, the assertion can be deemed to have a reasonable ground. In such a case, the interest rate on damages for delay under the above provision cannot be applied until the date when the appellate court rendered the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10603, Mar. 14, 2013). The Plaintiff’