Of the judgment of the court below on damages for delay, the plaintiffs' compensation details are listed in attached Table 3 of the judgment below.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that, on March 31, 1990, a contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to exchange the land of this case with the land of this case on or around March 31, 1990.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

2. Ex officio determination on damages for delay

A. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation until the judgment of fact-finding court declaring the existence of the obligation is rendered, the provisions of paragraph (1) shall not apply to a reasonable extent” to the extent that the application of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings may be excluded.

"When it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to resist the existence or scope of the obligation" under Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases refers to the time when it is deemed that there is a reasonable ground for the obligor's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Whether it is reasonable for the obligor to resist as above is a matter of fact-finding and its evaluation by the court concerning the case in question. However, if the obligor has accepted the argument in the first instance court because the obligor contests the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, it can be said that there is a reasonable ground even if the argument has been rejected in the appellate court.