Of the part of the lower judgment regarding delay damages, each of the Plaintiffs’ damages on February 2013 regarding KRW 200,000 against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal, the lower court determined the amount of consolation money to the Plaintiffs as KRW 200,000 per capita, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of damages as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal

A. As to the first ground for appeal, Article 1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Litigation Promotion Act”).

(2) Article 3(2) of the Act provides that Article 3(2) does not apply to cases where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute whether the obligor is obligated to perform such obligation or whether it exists or to the extent of such obligation, to the reasonable extent. In this context, where it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute over whether the obligor exists or to the extent of such obligation, it is interpreted that there is a reasonable ground for the obligor’s assertion as to whether the obligor is obligated to perform such obligation or to the extent thereof. As to the judgment of the first instance that accepted the Plaintiff’s claim, the first instance court, which accepted the Defendant’s appeal before the return of the appeal, was accepted by the Defendant before the return of the appeal, and the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered after the return of the appeal, was reversed, and the judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim as set forth in the judgment of the first instance after the return of the appeal was rendered by the lower court, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion was accepted by the lower court prior to the reversal of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da284, etc.).).