[1] The meaning of "a case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of an obligation" under Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[2] In a case where the appellate court accepted the defendant's appeal in the appellate court and rendered a judgment against the plaintiff against the plaintiff, and the judgment accepting the plaintiff's claim in the appellate court is rendered after the judgment of the court below was reversed and remanded, the scope of the period during which the defendant is deemed reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the obligation (= up to the

[1] Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings / [2] Article 3(2) of the Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Da6988 delivered on May 9, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1732), Supreme Court Decision 96Da17202 delivered on July 14, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2103), Supreme Court Decision 99Da212 delivered on January 21, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 474) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da20155 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong200Sang, 809) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Da61968 delivered on April 9, 199 (Gong199, 859)

Ori (Attorney Lee Yong-hee, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Maximum Red Hand (Attorney Lee J-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Yangyang Fisheries Cooperatives (Law Firm Gyeong & Yang, Attorneys Kim Nam-nam et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da55304 Delivered on November 14, 2003

Gwangju High Court Decision 2003Na9819 decided August 20, 2004

From September 6, 1996 to November 14, 2003, part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant ordering payment of 174,881,660 won to the defendant, which is in excess of 5% per annum from September 6, 1996 to November 14, 2003, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment, is reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and the corresponding part of the appeal is dismissed. All of the appeals by the plaintiff Or-hee and the remaining appeals by the defendant are dismissed. The costs of appeal by the plaintiff Or-hee are assessed against the above plaintiff, and the costs of appeal by the defendant

1. We examine the ground of appeal by the plaintiff Oral Ishee.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the premise that it is difficult to believe and there is no other evidence to prove that the above plaintiff actually concluded a contract for the export of snives of snives of snives of snives of snives of snives of 17 January 1996 with the importer of snives of snives of snives of snives of snives of snives of snives of snives of snives of Jan. 17, 196. In light of

2. We examine the defendant's grounds of appeal.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, such as the fact that the highest red pen of the plaintiff on March 2, 1996 entered into an export contract for snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snive snives through Livenive snives Co., Ltd. on March 2, 1996.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below dismissed the defendant's appeal on the ground that the defendant is obligated to determine the amount to be paid to the plaintiff Choi Hong-ju as KRW 174,881,660 and pay damages for delay at the rate of 20 percent per annum from October 28, 2000 to the date following the decision of the court of first instance.

However, Article 3(2) of the Special 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. In this context, when it is deemed reasonable for the obligor to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation, it shall be interpreted that there are considerable grounds 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 first instance court which accepted the Defendant’s appeal before the return of the appeal was accepted by the Defendant, and the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered, and the judgment which rejected the Plaintiff’s claim as in the judgment of the first instance after the return of the appeal was reversed, and the judgment which accepted the Plaintiff’s claim as in the judgment of the first instance after the return was rendered, the Defendant’s assertion was accepted by the judgment of the first instance court before the remand, and therefore, at least until the judgment is reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da96989, Jul. 19698.

According to the records, with respect to the claim for damages of this case by the plaintiff Hong-ju, the first instance court ordered the above plaintiff to pay damages at the rate of 174,881,660 won per annum from September 6, 1996 to October 27, 200, which is the date of the first instance judgment, from September 6, 2006 to the date of the first instance judgment, and at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal was accepted in the first instance court before the remand, and the judgment against the above plaintiff was ruled against the whole of the first instance court after the plaintiff's appeal was reversed before the remand, and the judgment of the court below against the first instance court after the remand was remanded (However, according to the reduction of the claim, the court below changed the rate of damages to 20% per annum from October 28, 200 to the date of full payment). Thus, if the defendant's assertion was accepted in the first instance court's judgment as to the extent of 1.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part is sufficient to be directly tried by this court. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay a sum of 174,881,660 won to the plaintiff Choi Hong-ju as legally determined by the court below. However, since a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay damages is recognized to have considerable grounds, the damages for delay is the duty to pay the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from September 6, 1996 for the plaintiff to November 14, 2003, which is the date of the judgment of remand, from September 6, 1996 for which the above plaintiff is declared after the date of the judgment of remand, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the damages for delay is to be paid at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement. Thus, the above plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted only to the above amount. The part concerning the damages for delay of the court of first instance which exceeds

3. Therefore, since the part concerning delay damages in the Defendant’s appeal is partly reasonable, it shall be accepted and the final judgment shall be rendered as above. The appeal by the Plaintiff Oralhee and the remaining appeals by the Defendant are all dismissed. The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff Oralhee are assessed against the Plaintiff. The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff Oralhee are assessed against the Defendant. The costs of appeal by the Defendant are assessed against the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)