1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

제1심 판결의 인용 이 법원이 이 사건에 관하여 적을 이유는 아래 ‘2. 고쳐 쓰거나 추가하는 부분’ 외에는 제1심 판결의 이유 중 원고와 피고에 대한 부분과 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다. 고쳐 쓰거나 추가하는 부분 고쳐 쓰는 부분 ▣ 제1심 판결문 제18면 제21행부터 제19면 제10행까지 부분을 아래와 같이 고친다.

Article 174 of the Civil Act recognizes the effect of extinctive prescription as grounds for interrupting prescription provided for in Article 174 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14340, Jul. 9, 2009) where a notification of a lawsuit meets the requirements for the notification of a lawsuit and the person who made a notification of a lawsuit expresses his/her intent to demand the performance of an obligation against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14340, Jul. 9, 200). In addition, it is reasonable to deem that the interruption of prescription takes effect when the party submits the notification of a lawsuit to a court by analogying Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da16494, May 14, 2015). Also, the defect in the period of six months prior to the completion of the lawsuit should be construed as being calculated from the expiration of the lawsuit in question.