손해배상(기)
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1.(a)
The exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act. Thus, in a case where there are special circumstances where it is impossible to expect the exercise of the right due to de facto disability that could not be objectively exercised prior to the completion of prescription, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da27604, Dec. 9, 1994). However, when the objective obstacle of the obligee’s exercise of the right ceases to exist, the obligor’s defense
In such a case, whether the right is deemed to be exercised within a reasonable period shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the cause of the claim for damages, the cause of the obligee’s exercise of the right, the grounds for delaying the obligee’
However, since the extinctive prescription system is the ideology of achieving legal stability and remedy for difficulty in proving it, it is very exceptional to deny the validity of the extinctive prescription based on the principle of trust and good faith even though it meets the requirements for its application. Thus, the “reasonable period” of the above exercise of the right should be limited to a short period corresponding to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, barring special circumstances. In particular, even in cases where it is inevitable to extend the period due to very special circumstances, it should not exceed three years, which is the short-term extinctive prescription period under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 2013).
(b) State agencies;