The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1.(a)

In a case where a lawsuit is instituted by clearly stating the purport that only a part of a claim is sought, the interruption of extinctive prescription by the lawsuit shall take effect only in respect of that part, and the remainder shall not occur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Da1557, Feb. 25, 1975). However, in a case where the complaint claims only a part of the claim, which is the object of the claim, and indicates in the lawsuit that the amount of the claim shall be extended according to the progress of the lawsuit, and where the amount of the claim is actually expanded until the lawsuit is completed, a judgment on the whole claim has been sought from the time of the lawsuit. In such a case, the interruption

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da43695 delivered on April 10, 1992, etc.). B.

In a case where the complaint stated that part of the claims as the subject matter of the claim shall be expanded according to the progress of the lawsuit, but where the amount of the claim is not actually expanded until the lawsuit is completed, in light of the progress of the lawsuit, it shall not be deemed that the judgment concerning the whole claim was sought. As such, the interruption of prescription due to a judicial claim shall not take effect on the remaining part

However, in such a case, a creditor who, while filing a lawsuit, expressed his intent to expand the future claim amount, shall be deemed to have an intention to claim the remainder in the future. Thus, barring any other special circumstance, the situation where the creditor has expressed his intention to exercise his right to the remainder in the pending lawsuit and exercises his right by peremptory notice shall be deemed to continue until the lawsuit is in progress. The creditor shall take measures prescribed in Article 174 of the Civil Act within six months from the time the lawsuit in question