The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that it erroneously interpreted the purport of appeal on delay damages.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the purport of appeal on delay damages was erroneously interpreted.

Article 385 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

[Judgment of the court below]

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na37439 delivered on February 25, 1993

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and it is decided as follows.

Of the parts against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part ordering payment exceeding the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from December 22, 1987 to February 25, 1993 for 167,698,208 won and twenty-five percent per annum from the next day to the date of full payment shall be revoked, and the corresponding part shall be dismissed.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

Three-fourths of the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal

A. The judgment of the court of first instance ordered the plaintiff to pay damages to the plaintiff at 220,823,550 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from December 22, 1987 to May 19, 1992, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the date of the accident of this case, and at the rate of 25% per annum from May 19, 192, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance. The court below accepted part of the defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance. The defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance is accepted from the date of the accident of this case to December 22, 1987, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance that it is reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the principal of the judgment of this case to the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the damages for delay from the next day to the date of full payment of this case.

B. The records are the purport of the appeal against the plaintiff until the closing of argument at the court below, and the defendant's attorney only stated that "the part against the plaintiff among the part against the defendant in the original judgment ordering payment in excess of 147,215,700 won and interest for delay shall be revoked, and the corresponding plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed." This does not necessarily mean that "interest for delay" shall not be determined as "damage for delay in accordance with the calculation method approved by the court of first instance" as recognized by the court below, and it shall be reasonable to interpret that this part of the court below's appeal shall be appealed to the purport that the appeal shall be appealed against the damages for delay in the judgment at the court of first instance. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the purport of the defendant's appeal and there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, this part of the court below's judgment is not reversed.

C. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below on delay damages is reversed, and this part is sufficient to directly judge the party members, and thus, it is decided to render a self-determination in accordance with Article

As recognized by the court below, although the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 167,698,208 won including property losses and consolation money, it is reasonable to dispute at the fact-finding court as to the existence or scope of the obligation to pay the above amount. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from December 22, 1987, which is the date of the accident of this case to February 25, 1993, which is the date of the decision of the court below, and damages for delay shall be paid to the plaintiff at the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. The plaintiff's damages for delay shall be accepted only within this limit for reasons. Since the part exceeding the above cited scope in the judgment of the court of

2. The defendant filed an appeal against part of the principal amount of damage among the part against the defendant in the judgment below, but the appeal does not state the grounds therefor in the petition of appeal and did not submit a statement of grounds for appeal within the lawful period. Thus, this part of the appeal is dismissed.

3. For the above reasons, the part of the Defendant’s appeal for delay damages is with merit, and thus, the remainder of the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)