The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

1. Where there is no precedent of the Supreme Court on the interpretation of statutes applicable to a small case in a specific case, there is a case where a number of small claims, the issue of which is the interpretation of the same statutes, are pending in the lower court, and there is a case where the Supreme Court concludes the case without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes, on the ground that it is a small amount case, it would be likely that the legal safety of people's lives would be harmed if the case is terminated without making a decision on the interpretation of the statutes. In such special circumstances, even if the Supreme Court did not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court," which can be viewed as the ground for appeal, even if it does not meet the requirement of "when it makes a decision contrary

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da1878 Decided August 20, 2004, etc.). Whether the starting point of the extinctive prescription under Article 166 of the Civil Act, which is a key issue in the instant case, can be said to have been changed by implied agreement in any case and there is no precedent of the Supreme Court, and there is a situation where the lower court’s judgment is different. Thus, the lower court’s interpretation and application of the above provision are determined.

2. Article 166 of the Civil Act provides that “The extinctive prescription shall run from the time when a right can be exercised.” Thus, the extinctive prescription of a claim with a time limit shall run from the time when the time when the time limit expires, but where the obligee and the obligor have agreed to postpone the time limit after such time limit comes due, the extinctive prescription shall resume from the time when the changed time limit

Such an agreement of deferment is explicitly and implicitly possible, and any case is in contractual obligation relationship.