(a) The method of notifying the decision on commencing auction in order to have the validity of interrupting extinctive prescription interruption against the primary debtor;

A. If a decision on commencing auction has been served on the principal debtor who is an interested party at the auction procedure, the principal debtor shall be deemed to have the effect of interrupting the extinctive prescription of the relevant secured claim pursuant to Article 176 of the Civil Act, but in order to view that the fact of seizure may be notified pursuant to Article 176 of the Civil Act, it shall be served on the principal debtor by means of delivery or notice of the auction date so that the principal debtor can be informed of the seizure, and it shall not be deemed that the fact of seizure has been notified even if the debtor was served on the debtor by mail (delivery) or by service by public notice.

(b) In the auction procedure under the Auction Act, which is initiated upon a request by a financial institution, the notice of decision on commencing auction or of auction date under Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans of Financial Institutions shall be deemed to have been delivered to the address indicated in the registry of the real estate at the time of application for auction, and in case where the address is not indicated in the registry of the real estate at the time of application for auction, or where the address is not reported to the court, it shall be served by means of service by public notice. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that in the auction procedure, it cannot be presumed that the notice of

(a)Article 165 and Article 173(a)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 180(b) of the Civil Code. Article 176(b) of the Civil Code. Article 3 of the Act on Special Measures for Delayed Loans to Financial Institutions.

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu4946 delivered on January 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 462). Supreme Court Decision 89Meu32606 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1572) 93Da21477 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 683)

Choung Bank, Inc., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Shin Young Fishery Co., Ltd. and three others

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na40689 delivered on April 28, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

The court below found on February 28, 1985 that the plaintiff extended 100,000,000 won to Defendant New Young Fishery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Co., Ltd."), and the defendant 2, the deceased non-party 1 (the inheritee of the defendant 3 and the defendant 4) jointly guaranteed all the obligations owed to the plaintiff by the defendant Co., Ltd. due to the above loan. The plaintiff was paid dividends to the defendant Co., Ltd. on August 26, 1987 due to delayed payment of the agreement, and received repayment of the above principal of the loan and other financial transactions by May 28, 1985 as mentioned above, were conducted for five years as commercial activities, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed on July 24, 1992, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the plaintiff had been served with the auction decision to sell the bonds at auction upon request of the defendant Co. 1, 1987.

When a ruling on commencement of auction has been served on the principal debtor who is an interested party at the auction procedure, the principal debtor shall be deemed to have the effect of interrupting the extinctive prescription of the relevant secured claim pursuant to Article 176 of the Civil Act. However, in order to be deemed to have been notified pursuant to Article 176 of the Civil Act, the seizure shall be served on the principal debtor by means of delivery of the notice of the ruling on commencement of auction or the notice of the auction date so that the principal debtor can be identified, and it shall not be deemed that the seizure was notified to the debtor even if the debtor was unable to know the seizure due to delivery by mail (delivery) or by service by public notice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da21477, Jan. 11, 1994; 89Da4946, Jan. 12, 1990). However, in the auction procedure under the Auction Procedure under the Civil Act, which is conducted by the plaintiff who is a financial institution, the delivery of the notice of the auction date or the auction date by public notice to the court.

In the same purport, the court below rejected the plaintiff's re-appeal with respect to the interruption of extinctive prescription on the premise that the seizure was notified to the defendant New Young Fishery Co., Ltd., and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the interruption of extinctive prescription due to seizure. Thus, there is

2. On the second ground for appeal

In this case where the delivery of an original copy of the decision on commencing auction to the Defendant Company or of the notice of the auction date is not attributable to the failure to report the change of address by the Defendant Company, it cannot be deemed that there was a notification of attachment to the Defendant Company on the ground of the same agreement as that of the lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

3. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)