(영문) 대법원 2015.10.15.선고 2015다220658 판결

1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below is reversed, and the Plaintiff’s appeal corresponding to that part is dismissed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 4,988,004,788 won with 5% interest per annum from January 17, 2013 to May 26, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. 10% of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the interpretation of the Act on the Interpretation of Contracts and the Procurement Business, the lower court, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined as follows: (a) on April 12, 2007, that five companies, including the Plaintiff, etc., were the Defendant, who is liable to pay the construction cost of the construction contract for the metropolitan incineration facility construction project

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of

2. If an obligor’s assertion in the first instance trial is accepted as to the grounds of appeal on Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings by disputing the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, even if such assertion is rejected in the appellate trial, such assertion may be deemed to have a reasonable ground. Therefore, in such a case, the interest rate for delay damages as prescribed in Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Act”) shall not be applied until the appellate judgment is rendered pursuant to Article 3(2) of the same Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21

In this case, the first instance court accepted the defendant's argument and dismissed the plaintiff's claim in its entirety, and the lower court accepted the plaintiff's claim in its entirety by following the conclusion of the first instance court, and as long as the defendant's argument was accepted in the first instance court, it shall be deemed that there is a reasonable ground for the argument. Therefore, even if the plaintiff's claim is accepted, the lower court cannot apply the interest rate for delay damages as stipulated in Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Regulation, which is the date the lower court sentenced pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the same Act. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the application of the above provision, thereby affecting

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to damages for delay is partially reversed, and this part is sufficient for the Supreme Court to directly render a judgment. Accordingly, according to the facts duly affirmed by the court below and the legal principles on the application of the interest rate on damages for delay under Article 3 (1) of the Special Act, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 4,988,004,78 won and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from January 17, 2013 to May 26, 2015, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum prescribed by the Special Act from the next day to the day of complete payment. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant ordering payment in excess of the above amount is reversed, and the remaining part of the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and the remainder of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant, as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.