beta
Text
The part of the lower judgment regarding delay damages shall be from October 5, 2007 to July 13, 2017, with respect to KRW 110,000,000.
Reasons
1. The grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the facts stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant was liable to pay the Plaintiff the instant purchase price and damages for delay thereof, on the ground that it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of this case paid to the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. KRW 110,000,000 and the damages for delay
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the relevant legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending
2. The decision shall be made ex officio;
Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation before a fact-finding ruling declaring that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation is rendered, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent.”
In this context, the "case where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist on the existence or scope of the obligation" refers to the case where the obligor's assertion in a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation is deemed reasonable.
If the obligor's argument was accepted in the first instance trial by disputing the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, the argument can be deemed reasonable even if it was rejected in the appellate trial.
Therefore, in such cases, the interest rate for delay damages under Article 3 (1) of the Act on Special Cases shall not be applied until the appellate court is sentenced pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the same Act.
Supreme Court Decision 201Da1448 delivered on May 8, 1998