1. As a result of the return of provisional payments, the Plaintiff’s 410,667,121 won and its related thereto to the samples of the Defendant Han Han-chul Co., Ltd.

1. According to the specification of transactions attached to the application for the return of provisional payments submitted by the Defendant Han branch Co., Ltd., it is recognized that the Defendant Han branch Co., Ltd. paid KRW 449,650,171 to the Plaintiff on May 19, 2014 based on the judgment of the first instance court of this case with the provisional execution declaration book.

However, the trial court changed the judgment of the first instance on February 4, 2016, and ordered the Plaintiff to pay 35,183,258 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from August 1, 2012 to February 4, 2016, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. As such, the part exceeding the above recognition scope in the provisional execution sentence of the judgment of the first instance was invalidated.

The amount of money paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is KRW 38,983,049 (= KRW 35,183,258 won + KRW 3,779,791 [ KRW 35,183,258 x 0.06 x 0.06 x (657/365)] based on the amount of the provisional payment made by the Defendant to the Plaintiff on the basis of the amount of the provisional payment made on May 19, 2014, and the balance is KRW 410,67,121 (= KRW 449,650,171 - KRW 38,983,049 according to the judgment of the competent court).

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from May 19, 2014, where it is deemed reasonable for the Plaintiff to resist the existence and scope of the obligation to return provisional payments to the Defendant from May 19, 2014, to February 4, 2016, which is the date of the original judgment, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. In conclusion, the defendant's motion for the return of the provisional payment of this case must be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and since the judgment of the above court omitted on the motion for the return of the provisional payment, an additional decision shall be rendered in accordance with Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act.