shall dismiss an incidental appeal.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, where a creditor delays repayment with a period of time for the obligor to approve the obligation, the extinctive prescription is proceeding again from the time when the grace period has expired (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da22852, 22869, Sept. 22, 2006). Where the obligor has requested for postponement of performance with respect to the obligee’s peremptory notice until the existence of the obligation is confirmed, the obligee is given reply from the obligor, or the existence of the obligation is objectively confirmed, and the obligee can also be seen as having been given a direct reply from the obligor, and thus, the effect of the peremptory notice is continued until it can be seen as being the same as the obligor has been given a direct reply from the obligor, and the period of six months as prescribed in Article

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da24336 delivered on May 12, 1995. The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning, and determined that the Defendant’s insurance claim against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) terminated by prescription at the expiration of two years from May 7, 2005 when the Defendant issued the instant recovery order, and further, on July 2, 2007, it was insufficient to deem the Plaintiff to have approved the instant insurance claim and suspended the payment of the instant insurance claim to the Defendant on the sole basis of the fact that the Plaintiff sent the Defendant with a content certification to the effect that the Plaintiff would suspend the payment of the instant insurance claim until the judgment of the administrative litigation instituted against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant administrative litigation”) became final and conclusive.

The judgment below

In light of the records, the insurance accident of this case occurred due to the failure to recover within the recovery period designated by the recovery order of this case, and therefore, the defendant's insurance claim of this case was Do on May 26, 2005, which is the expiration date of the above recovery period.