beta
Text
1. From July 26, 2012 to July 26, 2012, the lower court’s damages for delay against the Defendant were KRW 44,30,063.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1.(a)
The statutory interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings can be applied from the day following the day on which a written complaint demanding the performance of a pecuniary obligation or a document corresponding thereto was served on the obligor. Thus, if a creditor expands the purport of a claim, the interest rate under the above provision can be applied to the extended amount of claim from the day following the day when the written statement expanding the purport of the claim
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da56234 delivered on February 17, 1995, etc.). Meanwhile, Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that “when an obligor deems it reasonable to object to the existence or scope of the obligation” refers to the time when the obligor’s assertion that the obligation exists as to the existence or scope of the obligation.
Therefore, in a lawsuit seeking monetary payment 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, barring any special circumstance, it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist as to the existence or scope of the obligation, and thus, the interest rate prescribed in the Special Act on the Settlement of Special Cases shall not apply to the compensation for delay of the quoted amount until the court of first instance renders a judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da231870, Feb. 18, 2016). If the obligor’s assertion was accepted in the first instance court by disputing the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, even if the assertion was rejected in the appellate court, it can be deemed that there is a reasonable ground for the assertion. In such a case, the interest rate prescribed in the aforesaid Special Act
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da66133, Jun. 23, 2016). B.
The record reveals the following facts.
1. The plaintiff is against the defendant.