beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment below regarding delay damages shall be reversed, and the decision of the court below shall be modified as follows.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal on the calculation of damages for delay
A. In a lawsuit seeking a payment in money where the first instance court accepted only a part of the Plaintiff’s claim and rejected the remainder of the claim, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation until the date the judgment of the first instance is rendered. Therefore, the interest rate prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion”) shall not apply to the compensation for delay of the cited amount until the date the judgment of the first instance is rendered (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da64103, Feb. 23, 199). In addition, if the obligor asserted in the first instance court against the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, even if the claim was rejected in the appellate court, the allegation can be deemed to have a reasonable ground, and thus, the interest rate prescribed by the Litigation Promotion Act cannot be applied
(Supreme Court Decision 2017Da215247 Decided May 31, 2017). B.
Nevertheless, the lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s appeal and accepted the full amount of KRW 18,745,823 as the principal of the settlement amount to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and ordered the Defendant to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in each of the Civil Procedure Promotion Act, from June 17, 2016 to March 19, 2019, for the amount cited by the first instance court, from June 17, 2016, the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to October 18, 2017, which is the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served by the first instance court.
In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 3(2) of the Litigation Promotion Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
The ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.
2. On the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined by the Defendant’s defense.