The portion of the lower judgment regarding delay damages shall be 443,36,825 won per annum from September 9, 2015 to February 20, 2018.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected all the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was liable to pay for the unpaid amount of the sports goods supplied by the Plaintiff, that the instant license was made arbitrarily retroactively by the Plaintiff’s employee, that the Defendant agreed to be supplied with an additional discount on the inventory goods, etc. taken over from K and L, and that the price for the goods provided free of charge to the players should be deducted according to the contract concluded by the Defendant with the Plaintiff.

Examining the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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 “When it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation” refers to cases where it is acknowledged that there are reasonable grounds for the obligor’s assertion as to the existence or scope of the obligation.

Whether a debtor's defense is reasonable or not is a matter of fact-finding and evaluation of the court with respect to the case in question.

If the obligor's argument was accepted in the first instance trial by disputing the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, even if such argument was rejected in the appellate trial, it can be said that there are reasonable grounds.

In such cases, the interest rate for delay damages under paragraph (1) of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases shall not apply until the appellate court is sentenced pursuant to paragraph (2) of the same Article.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21696, Jul. 8, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is deemed to have been rendered.