beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, KRW 16,50,000 against the Defendant and 6% per annum from June 28, 2014 to November 19, 2015.
Reasons
1. Article 3 subparag. 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act provides that "when a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents has been made" means an interpretation contrary to the Supreme Court's decision regarding the interpretation of statutes applicable to a specific case, and does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence or a misunderstanding of legal principles, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da51714, Dec. 26, 1997). The allegation in the grounds of appeal in this case is nothing more than an error in the application of a specific factual basis on the premise of the interpretation of the law expressed in the Supreme Court's precedents.
This cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, and the argument that the judgment of the court below erred in the determination of the settlement of construction price, etc. does not fall under any of the grounds for appeal provided for in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.
2. Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Ex officio Proceedings on Compensation for Delay Damages (hereinafter “Lawsuit Promotion Act”) provides that “Where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to perform prior to the adjudication of a fact-finding court declaring that the obligor has the obligation to perform the obligation to perform the obligation, paragraph (1) shall not apply to the reasonable extent.” However, if the obligor asserts the existence and scope of the obligation to perform the obligation in the first instance trial and accepted the claim in the appellate trial, the assertion is reasonable even
Therefore, in such a case, the interest rate for delay damages under paragraph (1) of the same Article cannot be applied until the appellate judgment is rendered.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da50725 delivered on May 8, 1998, etc.). In this case, the first instance court accepted the Defendant’s assertion and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety. The lower court followed the conclusion of the first instance court and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim in its entirety.