The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the interruption of extinctive prescription, on the ground that the special successor to the sectional ownership of an aggregate building has in in a quasi-joint and several liability relationship with the former sectional owner, and in the case of a quasi-joint and several liability, the ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription or the waiver of the prescription interest, such as a claim for performance against one debtor or an approval of obligation made by one debtor, are not effective against the other debtor. Thus, even if the plaintiff obtained a final and conclusive judgment upon the request for performance against D, which is the former sectional owner of the building of this case, the interruption of the extinctive prescription does not extend to the defendant, who is the special successor to D, and in this sense,

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

Article 169 of the Civil Code provides that the interruption of prescription extends between the parties and their successors.

Here, “Party” refers to a party involved in the interruption and is not a party to the right or claim subject to prescription, and a successor refers to a person who succeeds to the right or obligation that is subject to the effect of interruption from the party involved in interruption of prescription after the interruption of prescription takes place, and includes a general successor as well as a specific successor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da46484, Apr. 25, 1997). According to the reasoning and the record of the lower judgment, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations expired on July 4, 2010, it can be known that the Defendant received a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit against D prior to the acquisition of the sectional ownership of the instant building by the Plaintiff against the former sectional owner, who was the sectional owner, prior to the acquisition of the sectional ownership of the instant