logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.01.08 2015나2013216
예금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, it is accepted by this judgment.

2. As to the assertion in the appellate trial, the Defendant asserts that the interest rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings shall not be applied until the appellate judgment is rendered, since it was difficult for the Plaintiffs to make a legal judgment as to whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to withdraw the deposit solely as the owner of each of the deposits in this case due to the complexity of factual relations.

However, Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings refers to cases where an obligor is deemed to have considerable grounds for the obligor's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Thus, it is interpreted that the obligor's argument in a dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation is relevant to the fact-finding and evaluation of the court concerning the case in question. Since the first instance court accepted the plaintiffs' claim in this case and rejected the Defendant's argument disputing the existence or scope of the obligation, it cannot be viewed that the Defendant's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation is appropriate from the day following the delivery of a duplicate copy of the complaint until the pronouncement of the first instance judgment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da62766 Decided May 24, 2002). In addition, in light of the facts known in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance cited earlier, all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant in the appellate trial shall be considered.

Even if there are reasonable grounds for the defendant's assertion, it is not reasonable to resist the existence or scope of the obligation.

arrow