1. Of the lower judgment, the part against the Plaintiff ordering additional payment shall be reversed.

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to object to a dispute over whether the obligor exists or the scope of the obligation” refers to a case where there are reasonable grounds for the obligor’s assertion as to whether the obligation exists or the scope of the obligation. Therefore, whether such a dispute is inappropriate or not is related to the fact-finding and its evaluation by the court as to the case in question.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da56234, Feb. 17, 1995): Provided, That in a case where the appellate court maintained the claim amount cited by the first instance court as it is, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed reasonable for the Defendant to claim the existence and scope of the obligation to perform the above quoted amount in the appellate procedure.

(1) In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below maintained the amount of award of the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of dividends against the Defendant cited by the court of first instance. In such a case, the following day after the date when the court of first instance sentenced the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of dividends to the Defendant cannot be said to be reasonable to oppose the existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation, and no special circumstance exists to deem otherwise.

Therefore, with respect to the claim for the return of dividends that the lower court maintained the amount of the first instance judgment, damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Litigation Promotion Act from May 21, 2015 to the date of full payment shall be added.

Nevertheless, the lower court, on May 21, 2015, from May 21, 2015 to May 3, 2016, which was the day following the date of the first instance judgment, deemed reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to perform as to whether it exists or not, and thus, is not the statutory interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Promotion Act.