When the statutory interest rate under the Special Act runs

1. 01Question

   Under Article 3 of the Special Act on Speeding-up Litigation, from what date may the statutory rate be applied to the amount added by an extended claim, and for how long must it be withheld on the amount granted at first instance and on the amount granted only on appeal?

2. 02Holding

   The statutory rate under Article 3(1) of the Special Act on Speeding-up Litigation may be applied to the amount added by an extended claim only from the day after the paper extending the claim was served on the debtor, and not for any period in which the debtor's contest is reasonable. Where the first-instance court granted part of a money claim and dismissed the rest, absent special circumstances the debtor's contest on the existence or scope of the obligation is treated as reasonable up to the date of the first-instance judgment, so the statutory rate cannot be applied to the granted amount for that period; and where the debtor contested at first instance and its contest was accepted there, absent special circumstances the rate cannot be applied even up to the date of the appellate judgment, although the contest was rejected on appeal. Applying those rules, the Court allowed 5% under the Civil Code for each period up to the relevant boundary date and 12% under the Special Act from the day after.

   Points at issue, verbatim

   금전의 지급을 구하는 소송에서 제1심이 원고의 청구 중 일부만 인용하고 나머지 청구를 기각한 경우, 인용금액의 지연손해금에 대하여 제1심판결 선고일까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 법정이율을 적용하지 않아야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)

   Unofficial English translation

   In a lawsuit seeking payment of money, where the court of first instance grants only part of the plaintiff's claim and dismisses the remaining claim, whether the statutory interest rate provided in Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings must not be applied to the delay damages on the granted amount until the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance (in principle, affirmative)

3. 03Disposition

   Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision

   피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분에 해당하는 원고의 청구를 기각한다. 피고의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The portion of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to this portion is dismissed. The defendant's remaining final appeal is dismissed.

4. 04Form of the test

   Elements stated Stated in the decision

   그 이행의무의 존재 여부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁하는 채무자의 주장에 상당한 근거가 있다고 인정되는 때를 가리킨다.

   Unofficial English translation

   It refers to a time when the debtor's assertion contesting the existence or scope of the performance obligation is recognized as having reasonable grounds.

5. 05Factors

   • 채권자가 청구취지를 확장한 경우, 확장된 청구금액에 대하여 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 법정이율을 적용할 수 있는 시기(=청구취지를 확장한 서면이 채무자에게 송달된 날의 다음 날부터)
   • 금전의 지급을 구하는 소송에서 제1심이 원고의 청구 중 일부만 인용하고 나머지 청구를 기각한 경우, 인용금액의 지연손해금에 대하여 제1심판결 선고일까지는 소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법 제3조 제1항에서 정한 법정이율을 적용하지 않아야 하는지 여부(원칙적 적극)
   • ‘채무자가 그 이행의무의 존재 여부나 범위에 관하여 항쟁함이 타당하다고 인정되는 때’의 의미
   • 채무자가 이행의무의 존재 여부와 범위를 다투어 제1심에서 그 주장이 받아들여졌으나 항소심에서 배척된 경우, 항소심 선고 시까지는 위 법정이율을 적용할 수 없는지 여부(원칙적 적극)

   Unofficial English translation

   • Where a creditor expands the claim, the point in time at which the statutory interest rate provided in Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings may be applied to the expanded claim amount (= from the day following the date on which the written pleading expanding the claim was served on the debtor)

   • In a lawsuit seeking payment of money, where the court of first instance grants only part of the plaintiff's claim and dismisses the remaining claim, whether the statutory interest rate provided in Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition of Legal Proceedings must not be applied to the delay damages on the granted amount until the date of pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance (in principle, affirmative)

   • The meaning of 'a time when it is recognized as reasonable for the debtor to contest the existence or scope of the performance obligation'

   • Where the debtor contested the existence and scope of the performance obligation and its assertion was accepted at the court of first instance but rejected at the appellate court, whether the above statutory interest rate cannot be applied until the pronouncement of judgment at the appellate court (in principle, affirmative)

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 1995. 2. 17. 선고 94다56234 판결(공1995상, 1420)

   Unofficial English translation

   Supreme Court Decision 94Da56234 decided February 17, 1995 (Gong 1995 Sang, 1420)

   Decisions referred to

   [1] 대법원 1995. 2. 17. 선고 94다56234 판결(공1995상, 1420) / [2] 대법원 2016. 2. 18. 선고 2015다231870 판결, 대법원 2016. 6. 23. 선고 2013다66133 판결

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   What circumstances make it special, so that the statutory rate of the Special Act may be applied even before the first-instance judgment despite the debtor's reasonable contest?

   An amendment to Article 3 of the Special Act on Speeding-up Litigation changing when the statutory rate begins would make this entry read again. A later Supreme Court decision defining the special circumstances in which a debtor's contest is not reasonable would also require a fresh reading.

Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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.