beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The lower court determined that, inasmuch as E was insolvent at the time of the date of distribution of the instant auction, the Plaintiff asserted that the extinctive prescription of the secured claim of the instant right of collateral security has expired in subrogation of E in order to preserve the claim against E, and that the said secured claim has expired on July 18, 2013 after ten years from July 18, 2003.
Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that E andO did not object to the auction of this case since they received notice of the auction at the auction of this case, or that they should be deemed to have given up the benefit of extinctive prescription, based on its stated reasoning, and determined that the existence, etc. of the provisional attachment of this case may not be considered in this case where the Defendant did not assert it as the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription.
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interruption of extinctive prescription and the waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription,
2. Meanwhile, the defendant paid interest under the instant agreement to the defendant by June 2012, and agreed on April 4, 2008 to pay the agreed amount to the defendant, which constitutes approval under Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and thus, the claim that the secured debt in this case was suspended by the extinctive prescription. However, such claim is obvious in the record that it was a new argument raised for the first time in the final appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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.