2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Gangwon-gu et al.

Government Legal Service Corporation (Law Firm LLC)

Attorney Seo-young, Kim Tae-hun, Park Jong-sik, Lee Jae-sik, Lee Jae-in, and normal trees

1. The exercise of the obligor’s 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, where there are special circumstances, such as the obligor’s exercise of the obligee’s right or the interruption of prescription prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, the obligor’s act of making it impossible or considerably difficult for the obligee to exercise the obligee’s right or the interruption of prescription; the obligee’s act was committed to believe that such measures are unnecessary; the obligee was objectively unable to exercise the right; or the obligor’s act was made in good faith after the completion of the statute of limitations; or there was a great need to protect the obligee; and where there are other creditors under the same conditions receive the repayment of the obligation, the obligor’s assertion for the completion of the statute of limitations is not permissible as abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37565,

Of the above special circumstances, it is very careful to assess that the defense for the completion of extinctive prescription is not allowed in violation of the principle of good faith on the ground that there exists a cause not to exercise one’s rights objectively to a creditor among the following circumstances: (a) there exists a risk of breaking the legal disability, which has been applied without changing the starting point of the extinctive prescription, and the standard of distinction between the basic disability and disability, which is a general provision, through the good faith principle, which is a general provision. In addition, the fact that the State is obliged to protect the public does not necessarily mean that the State’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription itself cannot be deemed as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith; and (b) this is also possible only when special circumstances, such as the completion of extinctive prescription, such as the State, are recognized (see, e.g

In addition, under special circumstances, such as the need to protect creditors, and the receipt by other creditors of the same condition, etc. of the repayment of the obligation is remarkably unfair or unfair, where the defendant's rejection of the performance of obligation is remarkably unfair or unfair, the defendant's defense of the completion of the extinctive prescription is against the principle of trust and good faith. "Cases where the defendant's defense of the completion of the extinctive prescription is against the principle of creditor protection" refers to cases where the debtor voluntarily pays the obligation to other creditors whose prescription has been completed, and only the creditor concerned refuses the performance due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, and where the completion of the prescription is remarkably unfair or unfair (see, e.g.

On the other hand, a creditor did not file an application for ascertaining the truth with the Korean History Settlement Commission for the truth and reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean History Settlement Commission”). The Korean History Settlement Commission did not initiate ex officio an investigation against a creditor pursuant to Article 22(3) of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for the Truth and Reconciliation, and where the creditor is not included in the summary of the decision of truth-finding and the order of decision, there is no special circumstance that the debtor would not assert the extinction of right due to the completion of extinctive prescription, and it is difficult to view that the debtor’s defense for the extinction of prescription is not allowed against the principle of trust and good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da21662, Apr. 10, 2014).

2. 원심은, 제1심판결을 일부 인용하여, 원고 A은 삼촌 H가 반국가단체의 지령을 받은 자라는 사실을 알면서도 신고하지 않았다는 이유로 1983. 12.초 국가안전기획부(이하 '안기부'라고 한다) 수사관에 의해 연행되어 1984. 1. 27.경까지 안기부 조사실에 구금된 사실, 안기부 수사관들은 그 무렵 원고 A의 삼촌 H, 외종숙 I의 혐의사실에 대해 원고 A을 조사하는 과정에서 손, 발, 몽둥이로 원고 A의 온몸을 때리고 발로 짓밟는 등 폭행하고, 갖은 욕설을 하며 "제대로 진술하지 않으면 살아나가지 못한다."는 등의 협박을 한 사실, 원고 A은 1984. 2. 24. 검찰에서 기소유예 처분을 받았지만, H, I는 서울형사지방법원에 기소되어 1984. 5. 15. 위 법원에서 H는 사형에, I는 징역 15년에 처하는 판결을 선고받았고, 위 판결은 1984. 9. 19. 서울고등법원의 항소기각 판결, 1985. 1. 22. 대법원의 상고기각 판결이 선고되어 확정된 사실, I는 2005. 12. 14. 진실 · 화해를 위한 과거사정리 기본법에 따라 설치된 진실·화해를 위한 과거사정리위원회(이하 '과거사정리위원회'라고 한다)에 위 사건에 대해 진실규명 신청을 하였고, 과거사정리위원회는 2009. 10. 20. I가 안기부 조사실에 최소 16일 동안 불법구금 되었다는 사실에 대해 진실규명 결정을 한 사실, I는 서울중앙지방법원에 위 사건에 대해 재심청구를 하여 위 법원에서 2011. 6. 9. 재심개시결정을, 2012. 5. 4. 무죄 판결을 받았고, 위 판결에 대한 검사의 항소, 상고가 모두 기각되어 2012. 11. 29. 위 판결이 확정된 사실, 원고 B은 원고 A의 어머니이고, 나머지 원고들은 원고 A의 형제자매인 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 원고들의 손해배상 청구권은 소멸시효가 완성되었다는 피고의 항변에 대하여, ① 원고들이 소멸시효 완성 전에 피고를 상대로 손해배상을 구하지 못하게 된 것은 피고 소속 안기부 수사관들의 조직적, 의도적 위법행위를 기초로 수집된 증거들에 의해 I, H 등에 대한 법원의 유죄 판결이 확정되어 그 효력을 유지하고 있었기 때문이므로 피고가 소멸시효 완성 전에 원고들의 권리행사나 시효중단을 불가능 또는 현저히 곤란하게 했다고 평가할 수 있고, ② 이 사건에서 원고 A에 대하여는 유죄의 확정판결이 존재하지 아니하나, 원고 A과 함께 연행되어 구금되었던 H와 I는 모두 국가보안법위반죄로 사형 또는 징역 15년형을 선고받아 그 판결이 확정되어 수감생활을 한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때, 원고 A은 I에 대한 유죄의 확정판결이 재심으로 취소되고, 그 재심사유 등을 심리하는 과정에서 자신에 대한 가혹행위 등이 객관적으로 밝혀지기 전까지는 국가기관의 위법행위를 주장하여 피고에게 손해배상을 청구할 것을 기대할 수 없는 사실상의 장애사유가 있었다고 할 것인데, 원고들이 I에 대한 형사판결이 재심을 통해 무죄로 확정된 2012. 11, 29.로부터 6개월 이내인 2013. 5. 3. 이 사건 소를 제기함으로써 위와 같은 사실상의 장애가 해소된 때로부터 상당한 기간 내에 권리를 행사하였으며, ③ 이 사건은 안기부 수사관들에 의해 집단적·의도적으로 자행된 중대한 인권침해행위에 관한 것으로서 피해자들을 보호할 필요성이 매우 큰 반면, 손해배상의무 이행에 관한 피고의 법적 안정성을 보호할 필요성은 상대적으로 작고, ④ I의 국가보안법위반 사건의 참고인이자 그 관련 사건의 피의자로서 I의 진실규명신청을 통해 과거사정리위원회에서 진행된 조사에 성실하게 임한 원고 A은 과거사정리위원회의 진실규명결정에 기초하여 상당한 기간 내에 권리를 행사할 경우 피고가 적어도 소멸시효의 완성을 들어 권리 소멸을 주장하지는 않을 것이라는 데 대한 신뢰를 가질 만한 특별한 사정이 있다는 등의 이유로, 피고의 소멸시효 항변은 신의성실의 원칙에 반하는 권리남용으로서 허용될 수 없다고 판단하였다.

3. However, examining the records in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the circumstance cited by the court below alone can not be deemed as having made it impossible or considerably difficult for the Defendant to exercise the Plaintiffs’ rights or to extinctive prescription before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. ② In the instant case where the Plaintiff A did not have been convicted of the final and conclusive judgment of conviction, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an objective obstacle that the Plaintiffs could not claim damages against the Defendant until November 29, 2012, which became final and conclusive by the retrial. ③ In the instant case, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a special circumstance to the extent that the obligor refuses the performance on account of the expiration of the extinctive prescription period only for other creditors for whom the period of extinctive prescription has expired with the very great need to protect the obligee. ④ In this case where the Plaintiff A did not have received the truth-finding decision of the past Private Liquidation Commission, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have relied upon the same attitude that the Defendant did not invoke the prescription after the completion

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of right against the principle of good faith. In this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the defense of extinctive prescription, which affected the conclusion of judgment. The defendant's ground of appeal pointing this out

4. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Chief Justice Park Jong-young