Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
A defence accepted at first instance keeps the statutory interest rate out until appeal
Supreme Court, Mar. 30, 2023, 2022Da297649 (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: 물품대금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
What does Article 3(2) of the Special Act on Promotion of Litigation mean by the time when a debtor is found to have a defensible ground for disputing the existence or the scope of its obligation, and where the debtor's defence was accepted at first instance but rejected on appeal, may the interest rate under Article 3(1) still be applied up to the date the appellate judgment was pronounced?
Holding
The Court read the phrase as covering a time when the debtor's dispute over the existence or the scope of the obligation has a defensible basis. Where the debtor's defence was accepted at first instance, it has a defensible basis even though the appellate court rejected it, so the interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Special Act may not be applied up to the date the appellate judgment was pronounced. From the day after that date the Article 3(1) rate applies, and until then the rate fixed by the Commercial Code applies.
Points at issue, verbatim
소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제2항에서 정한 ‘채무자가 이행의무의 존부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 타당하다고 인정되는 때’의 의미 및 채무자가 이행의무의 존부와 범위를 다툰 주장이 제1심에서 받아들여졌으나 항소심에서 배척된 경우, 항소심판결 선고 시까지 같은 조 제1항에서 정한 지연손해금 이율을 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of the phrase 'a time when it is deemed reasonable for the debtor to contest the existence or scope of the obligation to perform' as provided in Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings, and whether, where the debtor's assertion contesting the existence and scope of the obligation to perform was accepted at the court of first instance but rejected at the appellate court, the interest rate on damages for delay set forth in paragraph (1) of the same Article may be applied until the time of pronouncement of judgment of the appellate court (negative)
Disposition
Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 102,460,000원 및 이에 대하여 2018. 12. 1.부터 2022. 11. 3.까지는 연 6%, 그다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 12%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 초과하여 지급을 명한 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분에 해당하는 원고의 항소를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, ordering payment in excess of 102,460,000 won and money calculated at the respective rates of 6% per annum for the period from December 1, 2018 to November 3, 2022, and 12% per annum for the period from the following day until the date of full payment, is reversed, and the plaintiff's appeal corresponding to that portion is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
여기서 ‘채무자가 이행의무의 존부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 타당하다고 인정되는 때’란 이행의무의 존부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁하는 채무자의 주장이 타당한 근거가 있다고 인정되는 때를 가리킨다.
Unofficial English translation
Here, 'a time when it is deemed reasonable for the debtor to contest the existence or scope of the obligation to perform' refers to a time when the debtor's assertion contesting the existence or scope of the obligation to perform is recognized as having reasonable grounds.
Factors
- ‘채무자가 이행의무의 존부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 타당하다고 인정되는 때’의 의미
- 채무자가 이행의무의 존부와 범위를 다툰 주장이 제1심에서 받아들여졌으나 항소심에서 배척된 경우
- 항소심판결 선고 시까지 같은 조 제1항에서 정한 지연손해금 이율을 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
• The meaning of 'a time when it is deemed reasonable for the debtor to contest the existence or scope of the obligation to perform'
• Where the debtor's assertion contesting the existence and scope of the obligation to perform was accepted at the court of first instance but rejected at the appellate court
• Whether the interest rate on damages for delay set forth in paragraph (1) of the same Article may be applied until the time of pronouncement of judgment of the appellate court (negative)
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017다257722, 257739 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2017Da257722, 257739 decided December 5, 2017
Decisions referred to
대법원 2017. 12. 5. 선고 2017다257722, 257739 판결, 대법원 2021. 4. 15. 선고 2020다227448 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the debtor's defence succeeds on only part of the amount, in what range is Article 3(1) of the Special Act kept out of application under the words 'within that reasonable range'?
A later decision addressing how far the reasonable range of Article 3(2) extends where the defence succeeds only in part would require this entry to be read again. Any amendment to Article 3 of the Special Act on Promotion of Litigation would do the same.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 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 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 7 (burden of proof).
Axis 7 (Burden of proof): Primary “Not addressed” vs Independent “The party asserting”
The primary reading does not address who bears the burden on the debtor's dispute, while the independent reading treats the debtor as the party raising the defence and bearing its burden.
소멸시효 기간의 경과에 관한 증명책임은 시효이익을 주장하는 자에게 있는데Raw 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: The Chuncheon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 3 November 2022 (2021Na32382), held that the defendant, who had registered a business under a trade name and let his brothers-in-law, Outsider 1 and Outsider 2, trade under it, was jointly liable with them under Article 24 of the Commercial Act for the unpaid price of goods and default interest. It rejected the defendant's arguments that the plaintiff knew, or was grossly negligent in not knowing, that the defendant was not the operator, and that part of the debt was time-barred. It applied the interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Special Act on Promotion of Litigation from the day after service of a copy of the complaint until payment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in the liability finding or in the rejection of the limitation defence, and dismissed the defendant's remaining appeals. On the interest, acting on its own, it held that because the first-instance court had accepted the defendant's defence and dismissed the claim, that defence had a defensible basis even though the appellate court rejected it. It reversed only the part ordering payment above KRW 102,460,000 with 6% interest under the Commercial Code from 1 December 2018 to 3 November 2022 and 12% under the Special Act thereafter, dismissed the plaintiff's appeal on that part, and left the rest of the defendant's appeal dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the debtor's defence was never accepted at any instance, so that it has no defensible basis throughout.
- A period after the date the appellate judgment was pronounced, since the Court confined the Article 3(2) exclusion to the time up to that date.
- A case in which the claim was granted at first instance, since the Court reasoned from acceptance of the defence in the first-instance judgment.
Record verification notes
Confirm from the first-instance judgment that the debtor's dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation was in fact accepted, and note the date it was accepted. Then fix the dates and rates: 6% under the Commercial Code up to the appellate judgment date, here 3 November 2022, and 12% under Article 3(1) of the Special Act from the next day, and compare the awarded amount with KRW 102,460,000.
From the official text
Points at issue
소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제2항에서 정한 ‘채무자가 이행의무의 존부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 타당하다고 인정되는 때’의 의미 및 채무자가 이행의무의 존부와 범위를 다툰 주장이 제1심에서 받아들여졌으나 항소심에서 배척된 경우, 항소심판결 선고 시까지 같은 조 제1항에서 정한 지연손해금 이율을 적용할 수 있는지 여부(소극)
Unofficial English translation
The meaning of the phrase 'a time when it is deemed reasonable for the debtor to contest the existence or scope of the obligation to perform' as provided in Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings, and whether, where the debtor's assertion contesting the existence and scope of the obligation to perform was accepted at the court of first instance but rejected at the appellate court, the interest rate on damages for delay set forth in paragraph (1) of the same Article may be applied until the time of pronouncement of judgment of the appellate court (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
원심판결 중 102,460,000원 및 이에 대하여 2018. 12. 1.부터 2022. 11. 3.까지는 연 6%, 그다음 날부터 다 갚는 날까지는 연 12%의 각 비율로 계산한 돈을 초과하여 지급을 명한 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 그 부분에 해당하는 원고의 항소를 기각한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다. 소송총비용은 피고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the defendant lost, ordering payment in excess of 102,460,000 won and money calculated at the respective rates of 6% per annum for the period from December 1, 2018 to November 3, 2022, and 12% per annum for the period from the following day until the date of full payment, is reversed, and the plaintiff's appeal corresponding to that portion is dismissed. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed. The defendant shall bear the costs of the entire proceedings.
Provisions referred to
소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제2항
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