The appellate court's decision that, while changing the cited amount of the judgment of the court of first instance by partially citing the defendant's appeal, it is appropriate to take measures that order the payment of an amount equivalent to 25 percent per annum from the day after the date of the judgment of the court of first instance to the

In a case of seeking a judgment ordering the performance of monetary obligations, while the appellate court which is a fact-finding court has rendered a judgment changing the amount cited by the judgment of the court of first instance by citing part of defendant's appeal, it shall order the payment of damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of establishment of tort to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the payment of damages at the rate of 25% per annum from the date following the date of the judgment of the court of first instance including the period from the date of the judgment to the date of the judgment of the appellate

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1354, Dec. 12, 1989) (Law No. 1988, Oct. 27, 1989) (Law No. 1988, Oct. 27, 1987) (Law No. 1988, Oct. 27, 1989)

definition:

Sungwon (Co., Ltd.)

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na15265 delivered on September 21, 1989

From among the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the delayed damages part against the plaintiff Jung-man shall be reversed and decided as follows:

From May 16, 1986 to September 21, 1989, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant as to only the plaintiff's definition of the plaintiff, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding an amount of 5 percent per annum from the day after the day after the day after the day after the day after the day after the day after the day after the day of full payment, with an amount of 25 percent per annum. The plaintiff's claim corresponding thereto is dismissed

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

One fifth of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, and the remainder by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. The court below's rejection of the claim to deduct the Plaintiff from the claim for the payment of the compensation for disability in the lawsuit against the Plaintiff is justified, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a ground of illegality such as the theory of the lawsuit or the incomplete

2. According to the original judgment, in this case, for which only the plaintiff Jeong-si only sought a judgment ordering the performance of monetary obligation, the court below sentenced the same plaintiff to partly cite and change the amount quoted by the first instance judgment from May 16, 1986 to March 4, 1988, which is the date of the establishment of the tort in this case, and held that the amount of damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of five percent per annum from March 16, 1986 to the date of the first instance judgment, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2392, Jul. 7, 1987). Thus, the court below, which is a fact-finding court, shall be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2392, Jul. 7, 1987). Therefore, this part of the original judgment

In addition, according to the above, since the party members are sufficient to read themselves, the final judgment is to be rendered.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff Jeong-man the solatium 1,00,000 won with five percent per annum from May 16, 1986 to September 21, 1989, which is the date of the establishment of the tort of this case, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted only within the above limit of the above recognition, and the part exceeding the above limit of the plaintiff's claim as to this part shall be revoked unfairly and dismissed.

3. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s appeal against the above delayed compensation portion is with merit, and the party members’ final judgment shall be rendered, and the remainder shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)