1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are as follows: (a) the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning “the determination on the grounds for extinctive prescription (the fifth fifth and fifth fifth and lower judgment)” (the fifth and lower judgment) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (B) Determination on the grounds of extinctive prescription (1) The Defendant asserted that the instant obligation has expired by extinctive prescription; therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the period for repayment of the instant obligation on October 25, 1997 according to each of the evidence Nos. 1, and the record reveals that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 11, 2016, for which ten years have passed since the Plaintiff had been much more than 10 years from the Plaintiff, and the record reveals that (i) according to each of the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, the Plaintiff prepared a written notification demanding the performance of the instant obligation against the Defendant and served it on the Defendant’s children, but it is difficult to view that there was a demand for the Defendant’s legitimate performance, even if so, the Plaintiff’s demand for the performance of the instant obligation had already been completed by prescription.

(2) Since the debt of this case had already expired before the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the defendant's defense is well-grounded. (2) The plaintiff asserted that the defendant renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription at the time when the contract for the transfer of this case was made, but the benefit of extinctive prescription is not yet abandoned before the expiration of the prescription period (Article 184 (1) of the Civil Act), and the plaintiff's above assertion is not acceptable. (3) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed against the good faith principle.

The obligor's exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations is governed by the principle of good faith and prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of our civil law.