beta
Text
The portion of the lower judgment regarding delay damages shall be KRW 15,00,000,000, annually, from February 20, 2013 to June 16, 2016.
Reasons
1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the grounds of appeal, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that the instant contract was effective, wherein the Plaintiff would purchase one of the apartment units to be constructed according to the Defendant’s new apartment construction project, and was rescinded by the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around August 2012, and thus, the Defendant was liable to return the instant down payment and agency expenses to
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 acknowledged that there is a reasonable ground for the obligor's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Whether the obligor is reasonable to resist as above is a matter of fact-finding and evaluation by the court concerning the case, but if the obligor contests the existence or scope of the obligation, it is accepted in the first instance court.