beta
Text
The part of the lower judgment regarding delay damages shall be from November 27, 2012 to February 13, 2015 with respect to KRW 90,000,000.
Reasons
1. The grounds of appeal are examined.
The allegation in the grounds of appeal that the Defendant did not agree to return the instant investment amount to the Plaintiff is nothing more than an error in the selection of evidence and fact-finding, which belong to the exclusive jurisdiction of the lower court, which is a fact-finding court, and cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the lower court’s decision in light of the records,
2. It shall be deemed ex officio.
Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter "Special Cases") provides that "if it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation, the existence or scope of the obligation," refers to the case where it is deemed that there is a reasonable ground for the obligor's argument in dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Whether the obligor's argument is reasonable or not is a matter of fact-finding and evaluation by the court concerning the case in question. Thus, if the obligor's argument is accepted in the first instance court because the obligor contests the existence or scope of the obligation, the argument can be deemed to have a reasonable ground even if it is rejected in the appellate court, and in such a case, the interest rate for delay damages as provided in paragraph (1) of the same Article shall not be applied until the judgment of the appellate
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21696 Decided July 8, 2010. In light of the above legal doctrine, if the Defendant’s assertion was accepted in the first instance court of this case and the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, even if the Defendant’s assertion was rejected in the lower court, the assertion can be deemed to have a reasonable ground. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected, the lower court should be deemed not to apply the interest rate on delay damages as stipulated in Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases, even if it accepted