[2] In a case where an employer approved an employer's obligation to pay unpaid wages, etc. as well as prepared a notarial deed of debt repayment contract with the employer to pay them at the time agreed upon, and subsequently, the employee trusted it and did not exercise his/her right to such wages or take measures of interrupting prescription, the case holding that an employer's assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription as to part of the unpaid wages cannot be allowed as an abuse of right

[2] The case holding that in a case where an employer recognized the obligation to pay unpaid wages to employees, etc. two times after the application for rescission of the execution of the provisional attachment order issued by an employee, etc. as the right to preserve the unpaid wage claims, and the employer took the same attitude as the employer voluntarily pays the unpaid wage obligations to employees, such as making payment of part of the unpaid wages at the time of the agreed payment period, and the employer did not separately take measures such as exercising his/her trust and exercising his/her right to exercise his/her right to such wages or suspending the prescription, the employer’s assertion for the completion of the extinctive prescription of part of the unpaid wage obligations cannot be allowed as abuse of rights

1. The obligor’s exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our Civil Act. As such, in special circumstances where the obligor, prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, was engaged in the obligee’s exercise of right or the interruption of prescription, or acted to believe that such measures are unnecessary, or the obligee was objectively unable to exercise his right, or where there was an objective obstacle to the obligee, or when the obligor had shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations, or where the obligor made the obligee trust the obligor, or when there was considerable need to protect the obligee, or where some of the obligees of the same condition are remarkably unfair or unfair, the obligor’s assertion for the completion of the statute of limitations is not allowed as abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da22968, Aug

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in determining the plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages of 54,331,680 won from February 2, 2002 to December 2005 (hereinafter "the wage of this case"), the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for suspension of the extinctive prescription of the bonus of this case and the remainder of the bonus of this case excluding the bonus of September 2005 and December 12, 2008 from August 22, 2008, which was the filing date of the lawsuit of this case. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages for late February 2005 and the remainder of the claim for late February 2005 against the principle of trust and good faith. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for damages for late February 2005 and the remainder of the claim for late February 209 against the principle of trust and good faith.

3. However, we cannot agree with the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's use of extinctive prescription as to the wage obligation of this case violates the principle of good faith.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, since the defendant hospital was unable to pay bonuses, etc. to its faculty members from around December 2001, the professors working at the defendant hospital including the plaintiff were issued a provisional attachment order regarding the defendant's medical expenses credit as of November 19, 2002. Around that time, the defendant filed a petition against the chief director of the labor office against the defendant under the charge of violating the Labor Standards Act. The defendant, on May 29, 2003, as of May 22, 2003, as of May 22, 2003, as of May 20, 2005, as of May 205, the defendant approved the defendant's obligation to pay 4,457,501,714 won to the plaintiff et al. as of May 29, 2003, and the defendant prepared an application to pay the plaintiff's total amount of unpaid wages to the 205th of the defendant hospital's 205th of May 29, 20005.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, after filing an application for rescission of execution with regard to the provisional seizure order issued by the Plaintiff, etc., approved the Defendant’s obligation to pay unpaid wages to the Plaintiff, etc. two times more between the Plaintiff, etc., and prepared a notarial deed on debt repayment contract with the effect that the Defendant shall pay the unpaid wages to the Plaintiff, etc. at that time, and that part of the unpaid bonuses, etc. shall be paid to the Plaintiff, etc. after the preparation of the notarial deed, etc., the Defendant sent the same attitude as the Defendant would have paid the Defendant’s voluntary repayment of the instant wage obligations. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, had not separately taken measures to exercise the right to exercise the right to the instant wage or extinctive prescription with the expectation that the Defendant would voluntarily repay the instant wage obligations before the instant lawsuit was filed, with the expectation that the Defendant would be able to receive extinctive prescription defense as to part

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription against the wage obligation of this case cannot be allowed as it violated the principle of good faith, and it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the principle of good faith and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff as to the claim for unpaid wages from February 2, 2002 to December 2, 2005 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young (Presiding Justice)