Where the plaintiff's claim is partially accepted in the first instance and the appellate court's claim is additionally accepted, a dispute over the part additionally accepted to the defendant's appellate court is deemed reasonable.

The case holding that, in case where the plaintiff's claim was partially accepted in the first instance and the plaintiff's claim was additionally accepted in the appellate trial as a result of a dispute over the existence and scope of the duty of performance upon the plaintiff's response to the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, the dispute to the appellate court of the defendant's additionally accepted scope in the appellate trial is

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

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na37178 delivered on May 9, 1997

Of the part against the defendant in the judgment below, the part against the defendant is reversed. The defendant revoked the part ordering the plaintiff 1 to pay 40,000 won per annum from August 2, 1995 to May 9, 197, and the above plaintiffs' appeal as to this part is dismissed. The remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant are dismissed. The total costs of lawsuit between the above plaintiffs and the defendant shall be five equal costs, and the above plaintiffs shall be borne by the above plaintiffs, and the remainder by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, we affirm the decision of the court below that the plaintiff 1 suffered a disability as stated in the judgment of the court below, and that the above disability was caused by the accident of this case. There are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof, violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, misapprehension of legal principles as to causation, and violation of the rule of experience, such as the assertion

On the second ground for appeal

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that "if it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation until the judgment of fact-finding court declaring the existence of the obligation is rendered, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to a reasonable extent." Thus, the application of the provisions of Article 3(1) of the above Act providing special cases concerning statutory interest rates which serve as the basis for calculating the amount of damages caused by the nonperformance of the obligation can be excluded." Thus, it is interpreted that "if it is deemed reasonable for the obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation," it refers to the case where it is recognized that there is a reasonable ground for the obligor's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Therefore, it is a matter of fact-finding and evaluation by the court as to the case in question.

According to the records, with respect to the plaintiffs' claim of this case, the first instance court ordered the plaintiff 1 to pay damages with 4,822,144 won per annum for 4,522,144 won per day + 300,000 won per annum for the plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5 respectively for 10,000 won per annum for 193, June 17, 1993, which is the date of the accident of this case, and 5% per annum for 195,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9,000 won for 5,000 won per annum for 9,000 won per annum for 9.

However, if the plaintiffs' claim is partly accepted in the first instance court as a result of the plaintiff's response to the lawsuit in this case and the scope thereof, and the plaintiffs' claim is additionally accepted in the original court, the dispute over the scope of the damages claim in this case from the original court to the original court as to the scope of the additional cited in the original court shall not be deemed to be reasonable. Nevertheless, the original court's order to pay damages for delay at a rate of 20% per annum 5% per annum as provided in Article 3 (1) of the above Act from August 2, 1995 to May 9, 197, which is the date following the decision of the first instance as to the amount of 18,182,491, and 3, 4, and 5, respectively, which are cited in the original court's decision, shall not be deemed to be reasonable. Thus, the part of the judgment below's decision that points out this error is reversed.

With respect to this part, the court shall decide to render a final judgment because it is sufficient for this Court to directly render a judgment. The defendant shall revoke the above 23,04,635 won to plaintiffs 1, 3, 4, and 500 won respectively, and 4,822,144 won to plaintiffs 3, 4, and 5, respectively, and 10,000 won to plaintiffs 1 quoted in the first instance judgment, respectively, for the amount of 10,000 won per annum from June 17, 1993 to August 1, 1995, 5, and 250% per annum from the next day to that of 9,000 won per annum under the Civil Act, and the court below's order to pay damages for delay to plaintiffs 18,182,49, 304, 304, 305, 900 won per annum from the next day to that of 9,000 won per annum.

For the same reason, the part concerning delay damages in the Defendant’s appeal is partly reasonable, and the final judgment shall be accepted and rendered. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed as it is without merit. The five equal costs of the lawsuit between the above Plaintiffs and the Defendant shall be borne by the above Plaintiffs, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)