[1] Whether special damages, other than ordinary damages, are included in the estimated amount (affirmative in principle), and whether damages exceeding the estimated amount can be separately claimed (negative in principle)

[2] Meaning of Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “Special Cases Concerning Civil Procedure”), and in a case where the appellate court maintained the claim amount cited by the first instance court as it is, whether it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation in the appellate proceedings (negative in principle)

[3] Whether the statutory interest rate under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings should be separately determined for each subject matter of lawsuit (affirmative)

[1] Article 398 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings / [3] Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da41719 delivered on April 23, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1528), Supreme Court Decision 2010Da10382 Decided July 15, 2010 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da56234 Delivered on February 17, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1420), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da34581 Delivered on September 10, 202 (Gong2002Ha, 2432) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39092 Delivered on November 25, 2005 (Gong206Sang, 2006Da106786 decided November 13, 2008)

Cheongju-Jak's Cheongju-Jak (Attorney Yellow-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Gwangju High Court Decision 2011Na1786, 1793 decided June 21, 2012

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff as to damages for delay from July 15, 201 to June 21, 2012, concerning damages for delay of KRW 80,000,000, shall be reversed, and the Defendant’s appeal as to this part shall be dismissed. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s appeal shall be dismissed. 20% of the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the second ground for appeal

The purpose of determining the amount of damages under Article 398 of the Civil Act is to relieve the occurrence of damages and/or prevent disputes in advance, thereby easily resolving legal relations. In cases where the amount of damages is determined at the time of a contract, barring any special agreement, as well as ordinary damages arising from nonperformance, and special damages, and even if the obligee’s damages exceed the estimated amount of damages, the excess portion may not be separately claimed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da41719, Apr. 23, 1993; 2010Da10382, Jul. 15, 2010).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the above legal principles, the court below is just in holding that even if the plaintiff believed that the sales contract of this case is valid and incurred losses by spending an amount equivalent to KRW 25,419,950 for the construction cost of the forest road of this case, the defendant may not separately claim payment of the construction cost of forest roads exceeding KRW 10,000,000, which is the estimated amount of compensation for damages, and there is no error of law

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “the time when an obligor deems it appropriate to dispute over the existence or scope of an obligation” refers to the time when there is a reasonable ground for the obligor’s argument as to the existence or scope of an obligation. Thus, the issue of whether an obligation is unreasonable to dispute ultimately concerns the fact finding and evaluation of the court as to the case in question (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da39092, Nov. 25, 2005, etc.). However, in a case where the appellate court maintains the claim amount accepted by the first instance court, it cannot be deemed reasonable for the Defendant to claim the existence or scope of an obligation to perform the above cited amount in the appellate proceedings (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da61567, Nov. 13, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da61567, Apr. 26, 2005). Meanwhile, in a lawsuit joined a claim, whether the statutory interest rate under the above Act applies should be determined separately for each subject matter of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 200.

According to the records, as a principal claim, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for restitution of KRW 80,00,000 as the purchase price of KRW 10,000 as the claim for restitution following the cancellation of the contract, KRW 25,419,950 as the estimated amount of compensation for damages, and KRW 115,419,950 as the total amount, KRW 115,419,950 as the construction cost of forest roads, and KRW 80,000 as the part of the claim for restitution, and KRW 80,000 as the part of the claim for restitution after the payment of the purchase price, and as the plaintiff seeks after the date of the payment of the purchase price, there is a substantial dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation of the defendant from December 30, 206 to July 14, 201; and KRW 200 per annum from the date following the date of the decision of the court of first instance to the date of full payment; and the court below accepted the claim for restitution of KRW 20.

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, it is reasonable for the court below to dispute as to the existence or scope of the above duty of restoration from July 16, 2009 to July 14, 201, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case as to KRW 80,000,000, which was sought as restitution at the court below, as to the existence or absence of the above duty of restoration, and thus, it is reasonable to order the payment of 5% delay damages per annum, which is the legal interest rate under the Civil Act. However, even though the court below maintains the principal of the claim of restitution as cited by the court of first instance, it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute as to the existence or absence of the duty of restoration from July 15, 201 to June 21, 2012, which is the day following the sentence of the court of first instance.

Nevertheless, the court below ordered 80,000,000 won, as cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act, on the grounds that it is reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the duty to perform as to the above 80,000 won from the day after the judgment of the court of first instance to the day after the judgment of the court of first instance is rendered. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff regarding damages for delay from July 15, 2011 to June 21, 2012, concerning damages for delay, as to KRW 80,000,000, out of the damages for delay, shall be reversed, and this part is sufficient for the court to directly render a judgment, and therefore, the following shall be sold in accordance with Article 437 of the Civil Procedure Act.

As seen above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 15, 2011 to June 21, 2012 as to the above 80,000,000 won. Thus, the plaintiff's damages for delay for the above period of 80,000,000 won shall be accepted as reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal as to this part is dismissed as it is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is with merit within the above scope of recognition. The remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed as they are without merit. Of the total costs of lawsuit, 20% of the total costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)