[1] The meaning of "purchase" in credit transactions to which the 4th Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits amended in 1983 applies

[2] In a documentary credit transaction, the contents of the bank's obligation to examine shipping documents and whether the issuing bank may claim for the letter of credit against the issuing bank or its guarantor, where shipping documents were forged (affirmative)

[3] The legal nature of Article 429(1) of the Civil Code, which provides that the guaranteed obligation includes the principal obligation's subordinate obligation

[4] The case holding that there are special circumstances to exclude the application of Article 429(1) of the Civil Act to the contract delay damages, which are subordinate obligations

[1] Article 10 (b) (ii) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits as amended in 1983 provides that "purchase" means that a bank authorized to negotiate is paid for bills of exchange and/or documents, while international commercial conference has stipulated the practice of a bank that has been maintained for a long time. Even though some of the 5th Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits in 1983 have interpreted it as inaccurate as if it had changed its previous practice itself, "payment of the 5th Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits" stated in Article 10 (b) (ii) of the 5th Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits as amended in 193 means that it is paid immediately by cash, check, transfer through bank, or payment by old account, etc., and it is reasonable for the bank to accept the 4th Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits as well as the bank's intent to purchase the bills of exchange and the documents related to the 4th Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits as applicable.

[2] In principle, a bank is not in essence a transaction by a documentary credit and is not a transaction by goods, and therefore must verify whether the documents are in accord with the terms and conditions of the credit on its face with due care, and is not obligated to examine the documents. Thus, in a case where the issuing bank which purchased the documents consistent with the terms and conditions of the credit requested against the applicant or the guarantor of the applicant, the mere fact that the documents were forged does not constitute a reason to reject the claim. However, in the case where the shipping documents were forged, there was sufficient reason to suspect that the negotiating bank knew or forged the documents at the time of the negotiating bank's request for reimbursement from the negotiating bank, and if there was sufficient reason to suspect that the documents were forged at the time of the negotiating bank's request for reimbursement, the issuing bank should refuse to redeem the letter of credit to the negotiating bank, and even if the issuing bank paid to the negotiating bank, the issuing bank cannot request the applicant or the guarantor's request for reimbursement of the letter of credit documents from the negotiating bank, the issuing bank cannot be exempt from its duty to request reimbursement of the letter of credit documents.

[3] Article 429(1) of the Civil Code provides that a guaranteed obligation includes a principal obligation as a subordinate obligation, which provides that the scope of a guaranteed obligation between the parties to a guarantee agreement shall be deemed as a supplementary provision of interpretation in the absence of an express or implied special agreement as to whether the scope of a guaranteed obligation extends to a subordinate obligation of the principal obligation. Thus, this provision shall not apply to cases where an explicit or implied special agreement or special circumstance exists.

[4] The case holding that in the transaction between the L/C issuing bank that is a transaction between the bank and the bank that is the guarantor of the L/C issuing bank, the agreement for delay damages of 25% per annum between the L/C issuing bank and the issuing requester cannot be effective

[1] Article 16(a) and Article 10(b)ii of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 1983 amended) / [2] Articles 15 and 17 of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 1983 amended), Article 2 of the Civil Code / [3] Article 429(1) of the Civil Code / [4] Article 429(1) of the Civil Code

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da43713 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997, 2842) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 76Da956 delivered on April 26, 197 (Gong197, 1057), Supreme Court Decision 78Da1015 delivered on January 15, 1980 (Gong1980, 12621) Supreme Court Decision 93Da15632 delivered on December 24, 1993 (Gong194, 4966)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na11448 decided May 1, 200

Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Man Bank, Attorneys Yoon Ho-il et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na38033 delivered on July 24, 1996

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to damages for delay is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's remaining grounds of appeal are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental reasons).

1. Summary of the reasoning of the judgment below

A. The lower court acknowledged the following basic facts.

(1) Requests for issuance of a credit

On August 2, 1991, the Defendant bank requested the issuance of three L/C for the importation of clothing from the Non-Party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “new L/C”) on August 2, 1991. On the same day, the Defendant bank entered into an agreement0h of the request and relay pursuant to the 0g import L/C resumption theory with the Seoul Seoul branch of the Plaintiff bank (hereinafter referred to as the “recontestation agreement”). The principal contents are as of August 2, 1991, the opening date of the Plaintiff bank Seoul branch of the Seoul branch (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul branch”). The Applicant decided to open three new L/C with the amount as described in the 1C set forth in the 1C set forth in the judgment below. The Defendant bank’s payment guarantee letter following the resumption theory is substituted with the signature and seal affixed by the Defendant bank at the bottom of the application for the issuance of the L/C, and the Defendant bank guaranteed the Seoul branch to accept and settle shipping documents within seven days from the receipt date of the documents, but it is possible to change in accordance with the relevant provisions.

In a commercial credit transaction agreement concluded with the Seoul Branch on May 10, 1990, where the amount of a bill of exchange issued pursuant to the provisions of the credit is expressed in a currency, not in the Korean currency, the new agreed to pay, in addition to all the incidental expenses, the interest calculated at the rate publicly notified by the Seoul Branch (in trade practice, the realization rate is called) if there is no rate or agreement on the date of the issue of the bill of exchange or the date of the payment from the date of the bill of exchange to the date of the settlement of the bill of exchange or the date of collection of the price. The rate of the realization rate as of January 16, 1992 is 0.1475% calculated by the standard collection date if the said period is less than two days, and 0.2065% if the said period is less than three days but not more than fourteen days, the new rate is 0.2065% calculated by the standard collection date as of July 15, 191.

(2) Issuance of a letter of credit

On August 2, 1991, the Seoul Branch issued each of the above letters of credit (hereinafter referred to as "each of the letters of credit in this case") as described in the table 1 above on the application of the new letter of credit on August 2, 1991. The beneficiary is a new subsidiary located in Hong Kong, and the applicant is a new applicant. The use of the letter of credit is based on the beneficiary's negotiation of the bill of exchange issued at the Hong Kong Branch of the negotiating Bank (hereinafter referred to as the " Hong Kong Branch"), the negotiating Bank, the Hong Kong Branch of the negotiating Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "S Kong Branch"), the documents required to be submitted along with the letter of credit (hereinafter referred to as the "necessary documents"), and the date of delivery is until November 30, 1991, the period of validity is until December 20, 1991, and the new letter of credit is 193 amendment and/or 198 amendment of the Uniform Customs and Practice 30% amendment to the UCP, 1983 amendment of the UCP.

After that, on August 21, 191, the new and defendant bank requested Seoul Branch to change the terms and conditions of the letter of credit to allow air waybills issued by the shipping company or shipping broker instead of the bill of lading, and on November 28, 191, the Seoul Branch changed the validity of each of the letter of credit until May 31, 192. On August 21, 1991 and November 29, 191, the Seoul Branch changed the terms and validity of each of the letter of credit of this case in response to each of the above requests.

(3) A white documentary credit transaction.

뉴루츠는 이 사건 각 신용장을 기초로 홍콩지점에게 미국 뉴욕에 소재하는 신한의 자회사인 챨스인터내쇼날 엘티디(Charles International Ltd., 이하 챨스라고 한다)를 수익자로 하고 신용장조건은 이 사건 각 신용장의 조건과 동일한{다만 금액은 이 사건 각 신용장금액보다 적은 원심 판시 별지2목록 (가)항 기재 각 금액이다} 내용의 이른바 백투백신용장(Back-to-Back

On August 9, 191, the Hong Kong branch requested the establishment of the L/C of this case, and the Hong Kong branch issued each white L/C of this case as stated in the above annexed Table 2 (hereinafter "the each white L/C of this case").

원고 은행 뉴욕지점(이하 뉴욕지점이라고 한다)은 1991. 8. 15.부터 같은 해 8. 16. 사이에 이 사건 각 백투백신용장을 수익자인 챨스로부터 같은 목록 (라)항 기재 각 금액으로 매입하고 이를 홍콩지점에 추심하자 홍콩지점이 1991. 8. 22.부터 같은 해 8. 23. 사이에 각 매입금액 상당액을 뉴루츠로부터 지급받고(아래에서 보는 바와 같이 실제로는 홍콩지점의 대출금으로 지급처리하였다) 같은 날 뉴욕지점에 이 사건 각 백투백신용장 대금을 상환지급하였으며 뉴욕지점은 같은 날 이 사건 각 백투백신용장 매입대금을 챨스에게 지급하였다.

From August 22, 191 to August 23, 1991, Hong Kong branch borrowed each of the amounts listed in paragraph (e) of the same Schedule to New Zealand instead of actually receiving the amount of each of the instant L/C from New Zealand, and New Zealand paid the amount equivalent to the amount of each of the instant L/C out of its loans to the corresponding amount of each of the instant L/C. The Hong Kong branch delivered the necessary documents and draft of each of the instant L/C to Hong Kong branch so that the Hong Kong branch can receive the payment of each of the instant L/C after purchasing each of the instant L/C and receive the payment from the Seoul branch in order to secure the repayment of the loan. The Hong Kong branch has purchased each of the instant L/C and purchased each of the instant L/C at the amount listed in Section (f) of the above Schedule to request the Hong Kong branch to deposit each of the instant L/C in the deposit account at the Hong Kong branch. The Hong Kong branch has received each of the instant L/C from each of the above loans to each of the following point.

(4) Requests for L/C negotiation and reimbursement

On January 7, 192, the Hong Kong branch deposited each purchase price stated in Section 1 (f) above in the Hong Kong branch's deposit account in the Hong Kong branch's Hong Kong branch's Hong Kong branch's deposit on the same day, and notified New Zealand's deposit account, and withdrawn the sum of the principal of each of the above loans and interest accrued from December 20, 191 to January 7, 192, and appropriated it for the payment of each of the above principal and interest principal and interest accrued from January 7, 192 to the Seoul branch's purchase of each of the letter of credit of this case on January 7, 192, and requested on 195 to deliver the necessary documents of the letter of credit and the bill of credit of this case and to refund each of the letter of credit of this case to the Defendant 15 U.S. branch's deposit account, but the Seoul branch made on January 14, 1991 to pay the total amount of the letter of credit of this case to the Defendant 205 U.S.

B. Based on the above facts, the court below held on January 7, 1992 that the Hong Kong branch deposited the price of each of the instant L/C into the old accounts of New Zealand with the intent to negotiate each of the instant L/C, and held that the purchase of the L/C was made at the time of the payment of the price of each of the instant L/C, and that the Seoul branch, which was liable to redeem each of the instant L/C on January 14, 1992, performed its duty of redemption, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant bank was liable for damages at the rate of 2,05,417.50 U.S. dollars in total with the Plaintiff’s obligation to redeem each of the instant L/C amount on the ground that the Plaintiff’s new L/C obligation was not fulfilled on January 14, 1992 and the Defendant bank was liable for damages at the rate of 10 U.S. dollars in total from January 14, 1992 to January 16, 1997.

2. Determination

A. As to whether the defendant guaranteed the new Seoul Branch's obligations on the letter of credit of this case

In comparison with the records, the fact-finding by the court below that the new applicant filed an application for the issuance of each of the instant L/C with the Seoul Branch, and the defendant guaranteed each of the instant L/C claims to the Seoul Branch as the applicant of each of the above L/C, is just, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

B. As to the purchase of bills of exchange and necessary documents

Article 16(a) of the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 1983), which applies to legal relations with each of the instant L/C, provides that where a bank purchases documents in compliance with the terms and conditions of its L/C, the party who conferred such authority shall compensate for the bank and accept the documents. The meaning of the above negotiation should first be understood by the interpretation of the above Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (UCP 1993). Although there was no definition of negotiation, Article 10(b)(ii) of the UCP 5th Amendment (UCP 1993) provides that the bank authorized to negotiate shall pay the price for bills of exchange and/or documents. However, international commercial conference has stipulated the practice of the bank that had been maintained for that period, and it also has been interpreted that the bank purchases bills of exchange or bill of exchange under the premise that it would be 30g of the amendment of the UCP 1993 and that it would be 9g of the UCP 1993 amendment.

According to the records and records, in order to secure the repayment of the amount of money borrowed to Hong Kong from August 22, 191 to August 23, 191, the Hong Kong branch purchased each of the credit of this case, and deliver the bill of exchange and the necessary documents of each of the above credit to Hong Kong branch so that the purchase price can be redeemed from the Seoul branch, and if the Hong Kong branch purchases and purchases the purchase price, the Hong Kong branch made a request for purchase to request the purchase price to be deposited into the deposit zone of Hong Kong branch established at the Hong Kong branch. On January 7, 192, the Hong Kong branch made a request to purchase each of the above credit of this case to purchase each of the above credit of this case from August 22, 191 to August 23, 191. The court below was justified in finding that the Hong Kong branch deposited the above credit of this case into the deposit account at the Hong Kong branch established at any time in accordance with the above written request for purchase of New Zealand, and there were no errors in the rules of evidence or records.

If the facts are as above, Hong Kong Branch received the above bill of exchange and the necessary documents of each of the letter of credit of this case from New Zealand, which is the beneficiary, and there was a mutual agreement between Hong Kong Branch and New Zealand. Thus, the decision of the court below that Hong Kong Branch purchased each of the letter of credit of this case on January 7, 1992 is just and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the negotiation of the letter of credit of this case.

On the other hand, the Hong Kong branch at the time paid the purchase price of the bill of exchange and documents by depositing them into the deposit account of New Zealand, and it does not offset the above purchase price with the above loan claims against New Zealand. Therefore, the court below's decision on the premise that the Hong Kong branch dealt with such offset disposition is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to offset, the existence of a declaration of offset, and the existence of a offset, and the existence of a offset.

In addition, as seen above, Hong Kong Branch shall have deposited the purchase price of the bill of exchange and documents into the deposit account of New Zealand, and as such, whether the Hong Kong Branch withdraws the amount corresponding to the above loan amount from the deposit account account of New Zealand and appropriated it for payment of the said loan amount can not be determined by the fact of the completed purchase. Thus, even if the court below's additional judgment that the withdrawal of the above loan amount is lawful and valid, even if there is an error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles or lack of right of explanation, etc., such decision of the court below as to the existence of the above purchase fact does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is not reasonable to criticize the above additional decision part of the court below.

C. As to whether the contents of shipping documents and the procedure for claiming redemption comply with the terms of the letter of credit

The court below held, based on the evidences, that each of the instant L/C includes the following facts: (a) the value of the goods, the serial number of the L/C number, and the name of the L/C issuing bank must not be indicated in all the documents except for the 0g invoice, the bill of exchange, and the simple receipt.0h of each of the above L/C includes the contents; (b) the facts that the Seoul branch is stated in the consignee's column of each air waybill presented as the necessary documents of each of the above L/C (hereinafter referred to as each of the above L/C, but on the other hand, each of the above L/C includes the above special instructions, it is recognized that the L/C issuing bank does not state any bank in order for the L/C issuing bank to use the air waybill as a necessary document for use as a document for each of the above L/C different L/C, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the terms and conditions of the L/C issuing bank's name and the records.

Meanwhile, according to the records, each of the instant L/C is acknowledged that the negotiating bank notified of its claim for reimbursement of the purchase price and sent documents to the issuing bank and ordered it to send all documents to DHL. However, Hong Kong branch, the negotiating bank, notified the issuing bank, on January 8, 1992, that it purchased bills of exchange and the necessary documents of each of the above L/C, and requested payment of the purchase price after directly delivering the bill of exchange and the necessary documents to the Seoul branch, and then, on January 9 of the same year, it is recognized that the above bill of exchange and the necessary documents were requested to pay the purchase price. In light of the special condition that any discrepancy submitted by each of the above L/C is permissible, even if the Hong Kong branch did not comply with the above instructions while claiming for reimbursement of the purchase price to the Seoul branch, it is reasonable to view that the above minor disagreement alone does not constitute a ground for refusing to pay the purchase price to the Hong Kong branch. Therefore, we cannot accept this argument.

D. As to the violation of duty to notify

The court below, based on the evidences, acknowledged the fact that Seoul Branch agreed to notify the defendant of the credit settlement date and other business progress, and held that the documents necessary for the credit, which have not yet been negotiated within the scope of the validity term, cannot be viewed as illegal because it is difficult to view that the fact that the Hong Kong Branch, the L/C purchasing bank, was in custody of the defendant, constitutes a situation of business progress to notify the defendant, and rejected the defendant's argument that failure to notify the fact cannot be viewed as unlawful. The judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

E. In principle, where the L/C issuing bank, which has fulfilled its duty to redeem the documents in accordance with the terms and conditions of the L/C, requests the L/C applicant or the guarantor of the L/C applicant for the payment of the letter of credit on the grounds of the forgery of each air waybill of this case, the bank is not in essence a transaction by the documents and does not have a transaction by goods, so it is sufficient care to confirm whether the documents conform to the terms and conditions of the L/C on its face, and further is not obligated to examine the documents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da15632, Dec. 24, 1993; 9Da15632, Dec. 24, 1993). However, in a case where the L/C issuing bank, which requested the L/C applicant or the guarantor of the L/C applicant, requested the L/C applicant bank to purchase the documents, the bank should not be held aware of the forgery or forgery of the documents, and there is sufficient reason to suspect the forgery or forgery of the documents.

However, in a case where the negotiating bank claims reimbursement of the letter of credit against the issuing bank, the issuing bank cannot be exempted from its duty of reimbursement unless the negotiating bank recognizes that the documents were forged or forged at the time of the negotiation or that there was sufficient reason to suspect that they were forged or forged documents, and where the issuing bank makes reimbursement of the letter of credit against the applicant or the guarantor of the applicant, the applicant or the guarantor of the applicant cannot refuse to pay the letter of credit.

We affirm the judgment of the court below to the above purport, and we cannot accept the argument that the issuing bank cannot claim for the letter of credit against the applicant, etc. without relation to whether the negotiating bank knew that the document was forged or forged at the time of the negotiating bank's purchase, or there was sufficient reason to suspect that the document was forged or forged at the time of the negotiating bank's performance of its duty to repay to the negotiating bank.

On January 7, 192, the court below held that Hong Kong Branch or Seoul Branch at the time of negotiating each of the above L/C on January 7, 1992 that each of the necessary documents of each of the above L/C of this case was forged, but there is no sufficient evidence to suspect that Hong Kong Branch or Hong Kong Branch knew that each of the above L/C of this case was forged or forged, and rejected the defendant's assertion that purchasing of each of the above L/C of this case constitutes a tort and constitutes a tort, thereby offsetting the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for damages. In comparison with the record, the court below's above recognition and measures are just and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete trial, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to burden of proof, such as the burden of proof.

In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant, the applicant for the resumption of each of the letter of credit of this case, notified the Seoul Branch that each of the above air waybill of this case was forged, and ordered the Hong Kong Branch to prohibit the obligation to repay to the Hong Kong Branch, the negotiating Bank, despite the order, offsets the defendant's claim of this case against the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for damages caused by mistake that the Seoul Branch took place and repaid the purchase price to Hong Kong Branch, on the ground that the Seoul Branch could not refuse the performance of the obligation to repay even if the above order was given to the Hong Kong Branch, even if the Seoul Branch had the above order, the Seoul Branch did not have any error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles or omission of judgment.

In addition, even if there was no sufficient reason to suspect that the air waybill of this case was forged by the Seoul Branch or Hong Kong Branch, as long as there was a considerable reason to suspect that the air waybill of this case was forged, the act of purchasing the necessary documents of each letter of credit of this case, such as the air waybill of this case, or the act of repaying the purchase price to Hong Kong Branch constitutes tort against the defendant and the benefit that the plaintiff gains from this act constitutes unjust enrichment, but it cannot be accepted as an independent opinion contrary to the above legal principles.

F. As to the violation of the good faith principle

Based on macrosc evidence, the court below found that the request of the plaintiff of this case cannot be viewed as a violation of the principle of good faith on the ground that, in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below held that the plaintiff's request of this case cannot be viewed as a violation of the principle of good faith on the ground that the plaintiff's request of this case was just in light of the above legal principles and the records, the judgment of the court below was justified, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as seen above in the misapprehension of legal principles and the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above 10 L/C, when the Hong Kong branch borrowed 28 L/C, including each of the L/C of this case, which was opened as the beneficiary of new L/C, and the 10 L/C was repaid from New L/C and returned the necessary documents to New L/C, and the new 18 L/C purchased all remaining 18 L/C, including each of the L/C of this case on January 7, 1992.

G. As to the conversion fee

The fact-finding and decision of the court below on the obligation to pay the realization fees of this case are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the realization fees such as the theory of lawsuit, the violation of the rules of evidence,

H. As to the agreed delay damages

The new provision on July 15, 191 provides that the damages for delay under the agreement shall be paid at a rate of 25% per annum in the event of default at a bank transaction agreement concluded with the Seoul Branch shall be deemed to belong to the estimated amount of damages, and shall be deemed to belong to 0h of the obligations incidental to the 0g main obligations under Article 429(1) of the Civil Act. However, the above provision provides that the guaranteed obligation shall include the principal obligation, and it shall be deemed to be a supplementary interpretation provision applicable in cases where there is no express or implied special agreement between the parties as to whether the scope of the guaranteed obligation between the parties to the guaranteed obligation and the subordinate obligation of the principal obligation of the principal obligation, and there is no special circumstance that the above provision shall not apply in cases where the above special agreement or implied agreement is concluded with the Seoul Branch, and it is evident that the defendant's new letter of credit agreement was concluded with the Seoul Branch to the extent that it is reasonable to request the Seoul Branch to resume the above new letter of credit agreement to the extent of 10 days of the above new letter of credit agreement.

In the same way, the court below should have deliberated and decided on the existence and contents of the practice among banks in order to determine whether delay damages, which are subordinate obligations of each of the above terms of credit, are included in the scope of the defendant's guaranteed liability.

Even if it is difficult to view that there exists a custom among banks for the establishment of new L/C, this case’s L/C guarantee contract for each of the above new L/C obligations was concluded between the new L/C resumption Bank and the new L/C resumption Bank, and the defendant agreed to guarantee the new L/C obligations at the time of the resumption of the above agreement, but agreed to directly pay each of the above L/C within seven days from the date of receipt of the documents for each of the above L/C from Seoul Branch. Even if the defendant did not guarantee the above obligations, it is difficult to view that the defendant, who delegated the above new L/C establishment and negotiating bank to Seoul branch, was liable for damages to the new L/C branch within seven days from the date of receipt of the above shipping documents, because it is difficult to view that the defendant did not have any duty to pay damages to each of the above new L/C establishment of Seoul branch separately from the new L/C’s new intent to pay damages to each of the above Seoul branch because it was difficult to view that it did not have any duty to pay damages to the newly established Seoul branch prior to the above new L/C.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which immediately applied the above provision, which is a supplementary provision, without sufficiently examining whether there are special agreements or special circumstances as to the delayed damages of each of the above agreements, which are subordinate obligations to the obligations under the letter of credit of this case, is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles of the above provision, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal pointing this out have merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant as to damages for delay shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's remaining appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal with respect to this part of the appeal shall be assessed against the defendant.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)