1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the claim for legal interest, i.e., the plaintiff as to the defendant.

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for compensation for delay at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Interest and Litigation, Etc. (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”) with a rate of 5% per annum on refund of KRW 1,301,490,000 for the purchase price and refund of KRW 1,30 for the above purchase price. The first instance court accepted all of the plaintiff’s claim.

The defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court of first instance prior to the remand accepted part of the defendant's appeal, and revoked the part concerning the claim for legal interest and damages for delay under the Act on the Promotion of Litigation among the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, and dismissed the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part, and

With respect to the above judgment before remanding, the part against the plaintiff against the plaintiff (the part concerning the claim for damages for delay under the Law and the Litigation Promotion Act) was appealed against the defendant, and the Supreme Court partially accepted the plaintiff's appeal, and reversed the part concerning the claim for legal interest among the part against the plaintiff in the judgment before remanding, and remanded the case to this court, and dismissed the remaining appeal by the plaintiff and the defendant's appeal.

As such, the Supreme Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal as to the claim for delay damages under the Act on the Promotion of Litigation and the Defendant’s appeal as to the claim for refund of the purchase price. As such, the scope of this Court’s appeal is limited to the above reversed and remanded part, i.e., the Plaintiff

The plaintiff's new assertion that the defendant's right to defense of simultaneous performance was extinguished since the defendant clearly expressed his/her intention to refuse performance of his/her obligation as to the claim for damages for delay under the Civil Procedure Promotion Act after the plaintiff was remanded.