The appellate court has issued an order to pay damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum from the day after the date of the judgment of the first instance with respect to the amount of damages for delay, while changing the amount of the cited in the judgment of the first instance by citing part of the defendant's appeal (negative)

In a case of seeking a judgment ordering the performance of monetary obligation as compensation for tort, the appellate court, which is a fact-finding court, has accepted a large portion of the defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance, and has revoked part of the part against the defendant against some plaintiffs and rendered a judgment dismissing the above plaintiffs' claim, but the damages for delay shall be ordered to pay damages at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of accident which is the date of tort to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of 25% per annum from the next day to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the period from the date

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1350, Oct. 27, 1989) (Law No. 1988, Oct. 27, 1989) (Law No. 1989, Oct. 27, 1988) (Law No. 1989, Oct. 27, 1989) (Law No. 1990, 2508, No. 1990, 2508, Apr. 10, 199)

Abrupt et al. and six others

Dong Forest Transport Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na26241 delivered on July 13, 1989

Among the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the part on the compensation for delayed damage to the plaintiff head, the defendant's order, and the defendant's accommodation shall be reversed as follows.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff head's order for payment exceeding 7,414,274 won for the plaintiff head's order, 2,936,567 won for the plaintiff head's order, 5% per annum from May 3, 1984 to July 13, 1989, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, among the part against the plaintiff head's order for each of these plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiffs and the remaining appeals against the plaintiffs are dismissed, respectively.

2/5 of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiffs and the remainder by the defendants.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

1. The judgment of the court below that recognized that there was a causal relationship with the above accident as to the fact that the ground for commencing the claim for damages due to the tort occurred in the motor vehicle accident of this case, which caused the accident of this case to the right-to-right-to-right-to-right-to-right-to-right-to-right-to-right-to-face, and that there was no error in law such as theory of lawsuit, on the premise that the damage was known only after the occurrence of such a cause, and the period of prescription begins from the date of discharge after receiving the hospital treatment for the injury caused by the re-afmeration of the accident of this case, under the premise that the above plaintiff's accident of this case is running from the date of discharge after receiving the hospital treatment for the injury caused by the re-afmeration of the accident of this case.

2. However, according to the original judgment, in this case where the court below accepted a substantial portion of the defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance in which the court below ordered the performance of a monetary obligation of the plaintiff head, the court below decided that the damages for delay shall be paid at the rate of five percent per annum from May 3, 1984 to May 25, 198, which is the date of the accident of this case, and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment. The court below, which is a fact-finding court, erred in the legal principles of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2392 delivered on July 7, 1987), and since this constitutes a serious violation of the law that can be recognized as significantly contrary to the justice and equity, the part of the judgment in this case shall be reversed.

In addition, as seen above, a final judgment is to be rendered as it is sufficient for a party member to see himself/herself.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff head of the plaintiff, the sum of property damage and consolation money, the sum of 7,414,274 won, the sum of 2,936,567 won, and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff head of the plaintiff Lee Jong-si from May 3, 1984, the date of the accident of this case to July 13, 1989, which is the date of the original judgment, and the damages for delay at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the next day to the date of the full payment. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' claims are justified only within the extent of the above recognition. In the judgment of the court of first instance, each part exceeding the above scope of the above acceptance shall be revoked unfairly and dismissed the plaintiffs' claims on each of the above parts.

3. For the above reasons, the part of the defendant's appeal excluding the part of the defendant's compensation for delay in the order of the head of the plaintiff, and the remaining plaintiffs, are without merit. The appeal on the part of the plaintiff's compensation for delay in the order of the head of the plaintiff and the safe accommodation is accepted as reasonable and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who reviewed the final judgment.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)