Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
Article 3(1) of the Special Act and suits claiming only post-judgment interest
Supreme Court, Mar. 31, 2022, 2021Da299167 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 기타(금전)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an earlier judgment has already fixed the principal of a monetary obligation, does Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation apply to a separate suit that claims only the statutory interest or delayed damages arising after that judgment, and may the Supreme Court decide the point in a small-claims case even though the appellant did not meet the statutory ground of appeal?
Holding
No. Article 3(1) is by its own wording premised on a judgment ordering payment of the monetary obligation itself, since the delayed damages it prices arise from that obligation, and its aim is to discourage non-performance without reasonable cause before judgment, so it should be interpreted and applied with greater care. A suit claiming only statutory interest or delayed damages arising after an earlier judgment fixed the principal falls outside the provision, though a suit that takes a fixed, overdue damages debt as a new principal and claims further delayed damages may fall within it. The Court nonetheless examined the point because its precedent on Article 3(1) is unclear and many cases applying it are pending below.
Points at issue, verbatim
종전 소송에서 이미 판결로 확정된 금전채무의 원본에 대하여 그 판결 이후에 발생한 법정이자나 지연손해금만을 별도의 소송으로 구하는 경우, 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제1항을 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings may be applied where only the statutory interest or damages for delay accruing after a judgment is sought in a separate lawsuit as to the principal of a monetary obligation already fixed by a judgment in a previous lawsuit (negative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
종전 소송에서 이미 판결로 확정된 금전채무의 원본에 대하여 그 판결 이후에 발생한 법정이자나 지연손해금만을 별도의 소송으로 구하는 경우에는 해당 조항의 문언 및 입법 취지 등에 비추어 소송촉진법 제3조 제1항을 적용할 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
Where only the statutory interest or damages for delay accruing after a judgment is sought in a separate lawsuit as to the principal of a monetary obligation already fixed by a judgment in a previous lawsuit, Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings cannot be applied in light of the text and legislative purpose of that provision
Factors
- 소액사건에 관하여 상고이유로 할 수 있는 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 때’의 요건을 갖추지 않았지만
- 대법원이 실체법 해석적용의 잘못에 관하여 직권으로 판단할 수 있는 경우
- 종전 소송에서 이미 판결로 확정된 금전채무의 원본에 대하여 그 판결 이후에 발생한 법정이자나 지연손해금만을 별도의 소송으로 구하는 경우
Unofficial English translation
• Where the requirement of "rendering a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents," which may serve as a ground for final appeal in a small-claims case, is not met but
• the Supreme Court may determine ex officio an error in the interpretation and application of substantive law
• Where only the statutory interest or damages for delay accruing after a judgment is sought in a separate lawsuit as to the principal of a monetary obligation already fixed by a judgment in a previous lawsuit
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2010다50922 판결, 대법원 2010. 12. 9. 선고 2009다59237 판결, 대법원 2021. 6. 3. 선고 2018다276768 판결 등 참조
Unofficial English translation
See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da50922 decided September 30, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2009Da59237 decided December 9, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2018Da276768 decided June 3, 2021.
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2018. 9. 13. 선고 2017다16778 판결(공2018하, 1970) / [2] 대법원 2010. 9. 30. 선고 2010다50922 판결(공2010하, 2009), 대법원 2010. 12. 9. 선고 2009다59237 판결(공2011상, 97), 대법원 2021. 6. 3. 선고 2018다276768 판결(공2021하, 1242)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a suit takes a fixed, overdue damages debt as a new principal and claims further delayed damages on it, at what rate and from which date does Article 3(1) apply to that new claim itself?
A later Supreme Court decision giving content to the room the Court left for Article 3(1) where a fixed overdue debt is reused as a new principal would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, or a change in how clearly its precedent is settled for small-claims appeals, would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: In the judgment below, the Seoul Central District Court, on appeal, affirmed the first-instance order that Defendant pay the confirmed delayed damages of KRW 4,048,298 the plaintiff claimed, while holding that on the remaining principal of KRW 76,406,426 from the lease deposit claim and on the litigation costs claim of KRW 1,873,480, the statutory rate under the Civil Act, not the 12 per cent rate under Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation, was to be calculated from 16 July 2020. It dismissed both parties' appeals.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. Applying the law it set out, it held that the court below had correctly applied the statutory rate of the Civil Act to the portion the plaintiff challenged, and that there was no misreading of the scope of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Promotion of Litigation. The Justices unanimously dismissed the appeal and placed the costs of the appeal on the plaintiff.
Distinguishing conditions
- A suit in which a fixed, overdue damages debt from an earlier judgment is taken as a new principal and further delayed damages are claimed on it, since the Court left room for Article 3(1) in that situation.
- A suit in which the principal of the monetary obligation is still to be decided, since Article 3(1) presupposes a judgment ordering payment of the principal.
- A small-claims appeal in which the Supreme Court's precedent on the provision is clear and no special circumstances exist, since the Court's power to decide on its own was grounded in unclear precedent and many pending cases.
Record verification notes
Set each sum claimed in the new suit against the judgment that finally fixed it, and note the date that judgment became final, since the exclusion turns on the claim being for interest or damages arising after that judgment. Check whether the suit adds the fixed overdue damages as a new principal, which the Court said may leave room for Article 3(1). Confirm that the amounts, the 12 per cent rate and the dates from 1 July and 11 October 2019 and from 16 July 2020 match the file.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 소액사건에 관하여 상고이유로 할 수 있는 ‘대법원의 판례에 상반되는 판단을 한 때’의 요건을 갖추지 않았지만 대법원이 실체법 해석적용의 잘못에 관하여 직권으로 판단할 수 있는 경우 [2] 종전 소송에서 이미 판결로 확정된 금전채무의 원본에 대하여 그 판결 이후에 발생한 법정이자나 지연손해금만을 별도의 소송으로 구하는 경우, 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제1항을 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether the requirement of "rendering a decision contrary to the Supreme Court's precedents," which may serve as a ground for final appeal in a small-claims case, is not met but the Supreme Court may determine ex officio an error in the interpretation and application of substantive law [2] Whether Article 3, paragraph (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings may be applied where only the statutory interest or damages for delay accruing after a judgment is sought in a separate lawsuit as to the principal of a monetary obligation already fixed by a judgment in a previous lawsuit (negative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 소액사건심판법 제3조 제2호 [2] 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제1항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger