1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

The reasoning of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, except for the modification of part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this Court’s reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

E. On February 28, 2018, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a note to the effect that “The balance at present in us, among the money deposited by the Plaintiff, is US$ 97,396, and is to be supplied by the vehicle corresponding to the balance for three months, and if the supply of the vehicle does not take place within three months, the Defendant promises to assume all legal responsibilities.”

The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows.

3. According to the facts of the judgment on the merits, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Promotion Act”) from July 25, 2018 to the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, which was agreed to return to the Plaintiff.

From July 24, 2018, the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the interest rate as stipulated by the Promotion Act. However, the statutory interest rate under Article 3(1) of the same Act can be applied from the day following the day on which the complaint seeking the performance of the monetary obligation or other equivalent document was served on the obligor. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay on July 24, 2018 is rejected.

Meanwhile, Article 3(2) of the Promotion Act provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation” means that there is a reasonable ground for the obligor’s argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da56234, Feb. 17, 1995). The Defendant’s assertion that partial acceptance of the Defendant’s appeal is made.