1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court shall decide whether the assertion of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules, based on the principle of social justice and equity, by taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings and the results of the examination of evidence (Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact duly confirmed by the court of final appeal that the judgment below did not exceed the bounds of the principle

(A) Article 174 of the Civil Act provides that “The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of insurance money to the Defendant on June 7, 2010, which was prior to the expiration of extinctive prescription, constitutes the highest order under Article 174 of the Civil Act, and the Defendant’s demand for submission of documents necessary for the examination of payment of insurance money, including a criminal judgment, is necessary to investigate the existence of the obligation to pay insurance money upon a criminal decision, and thus, the payment is suspended. Thus, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant insurance money against the Defendant was interrupted on the grounds that the Defendant’s demand for submission of documents necessary for the examination of payment of insurance money, including a criminal judgment, should be viewed as having been conducted.”

The purport of this part of the grounds of appeal is nothing more than the selection of evidence, determination of the value of evidence, and fact-finding based on the free evaluation of the fact-finding court.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the relevant legal doctrine as cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the validity of the peremptory notice demanding the progress of extinctive prescription and the postponement of performance of insurance claims, contrary to what is alleged in