beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance, including the order of the stay of enforcement, shall be modified as follows:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows: (a) No. 9 of the first instance court's judgment is stated in the second instance court's judgment, "It is reasonable to deny the defendant from enforcing compulsory execution based on the judgment of this case against the plaintiffs, unless there are any special circumstances; and (b) No. 7 of the fourth through fifth is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the second instance court's dismissal as stated in the following Paragraph (2). Therefore, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff B gave up the benefit of prescription by expressing his intention of voluntary repayment of the claim of this case to the defendant after the completion of the extinctive prescription of the claim of this case, the execution of the judgment of this case shall not be excluded.
Where the obligor approves the obligation after the completion of prescription, the obligor may presume to waive his/her benefit with the knowledge of the completion of prescription.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 66Da2173, Feb. 7, 1967; 92Da4796, May 22, 1992). An effective intent is required for an obligor who receives the prescription benefit to avoid receiving the legal benefit due to the completion of the statute of limitations.
(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 6, Plaintiff B, who visited the Office of Education attached to the Defendant on April 17, 2017, which was after the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the instant claim, requested exemption from the remainder of interest obligations when providing repayment of KRW 15 million, which is a part of the principal and interest of the instant claim, to the Defendant, on April 17, 2017. In so doing, Plaintiff B, beyond simply showing the recognition of the existence of the instant claim, actively expressed its intent to recognize the legal effect of the instant claim and to perform the Defendant’s obligation in response thereto.