[1] The method of recognizing the obligation as a ground for interruption of prescription

[2] The case holding that where a debtor prepared and delivered a written statement that he/she did not transfer his/her claim from the creditor and submitted it as evidence in a lawsuit claiming the transfer of claim against the debtor, and a favorable judgment was rendered in favor of him/her, since the debtor obtained the above written statement from the creditor and approved the debt, the extinctive prescription

[1] Approval as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription shall be established by expressing that the debtor who is the party to the benefit of extinctive prescription, is aware of the existence of the right to the person who will lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription or his/her agent. The method of indication does not require any form, but does not require any explicit or implied case.

[2] The case holding that where a debtor prepared and delivered a written statement that the debtor did not transfer his/her claim from the creditor and submitted it as evidence in a lawsuit claiming the transfer of claim against the debtor, and a favorable judgment was rendered in favor of the debtor, since the debtor obtained the above written statement from the creditor and approved his/her obligation, the extinctive prescription was interrupted

[1] Article 168 subparag. 3 and Article 177 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 168 subparag. 3 and Article 177 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da947 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1595) Supreme Court Decision 95Da30178 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3622), Supreme Court Decision 98Da38661 delivered on November 13, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2863)

C&C Co., Ltd.

Defendant (Attorney Seo Jae-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na5265 delivered on November 25, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on April 23, 191, the court below determined as follows: (a) based on the evidence of the judgment below, the plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the defendant to newly construct the first, fourth and fourth underground floor housing on the ground of Songpa-gu Seoul ( Address omitted); (b) from April 30, 1991 to August 30, 1991; (c) the down payment of KRW 12 million on the date of the contract; and (d) the intermediate payment of KRW 18 million on May 5, 191; and (d) the remaining amount of KRW 115 million on the completion date of the construction of the building of this case to be appropriated for the rental deposit by directly leasing it after completion inspection; and (e) the plaintiff was obligated to complete the construction completion inspection on April 7, 1992; and (e) the defendant received the remainder payment from the defendant; and (e) the remaining amount of the construction from the defendant to the defendant on the completion date.

2. As to the assertion that the claim for construction price expires

A. Approval as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription is established by expressing that an obligor who is a party to the benefit of prescription is aware of the existence of the right to the obligor or his/her agent, who is a party to the benefit of prescription. The method of indication does not require any form, but does not require any explicit form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da30178, Sept. 29, 1995; 98Da38661, Nov. 13, 1998).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1 was entrusted with the collection of the claim for the construction price of this case by the plaintiff and brought a lawsuit claiming the acquisition of the claim against the defendant, asserting that he was transferred the claim of 40 million won among the construction price of this case by the plaintiff. The defendant asserted that "the plaintiff did not transfer the claim for the construction price of this case to the non-party 1" through the defendant's wife, and the defendant's wife asserted that "the above assignment of the claim is null and void because there is no transfer of the claim for the construction price of this case to the non-party 1, and the above claim for the construction price of 85 million won after deducting the amount paid by the defendant from the above claim for the construction price of this case, the plaintiff has a claim for the construction price of 85 million won from the plaintiff." The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles or misapprehension of legal principles as to the statute of limitations of the construction price of limitations, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3. As to the assertion on the waiver of the claim for remainder of construction

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on February 12, 1992, when non-party 2's representative director was unable to complete the construction of this case by the date of completion as originally agreed upon by the defendant due to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the court below acknowledged that "if the construction of this case is not completed by February 29, 1992, it shall reduce the liability for the completion of the construction of this case and shall be completed by the extended period until February 29, 1992, and if the construction of this case is not completed by the postponed date, it shall be delivered to the defendant as the building under construction and shall waive all the balance of the construction to the defendant as the present condition," and it is reasonable to view that the court below determined that the remaining amount of the construction was liquidated as compensation for damages when the plaintiff failed to complete the construction of this case by February 29, 192, which is the postponed completion date. In light of the circumstances stated in the arguments in this case, the above determination of the court below is justified and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

4. As to the assertion of offsetting the defect repair expenses claims and the claims for liquidated damages

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's claim for offsetting damages on the ground that the defendant received 12.8 million won from the plaintiff at the time of paying 30 million won of the construction price to the plaintiff as the repair cost of the building in this case, and agreed not to interpret the repair cost of the defect caused by the construction in this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the compensation for delay. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

5. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)