1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of this case is as stated in the column of the reasoning of the first instance judgment. As such, the second instance court’s explanation is acceptable pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. In addition, the second instance court’s amendment to the “decision on the expiration of extinctive prescription” portion from 10th to 21th 1th 21th 13 of the first instance judgment.

The exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is also governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act. Therefore, in a case where there are special circumstances where it is impossible to expect the exercise of the right due to a de facto disability that could not exercise the right before the completion of prescription, the obligor’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da27604, Dec. 9, 1994). However, when the objective obstacle of the obligee’s exercise of the right is eliminated, the obligor’s defense of extinctive

In such a case, whether the right is deemed to be exercised within a reasonable period shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, the cause of the claim for damages, the cause of the obligee’s exercise of the right, the grounds for delaying the obligee’

However, since the extinctive prescription system is based on the ideology of achieving legal stability and remedy for difficulty in proving, it is very exceptional to deny the validity of the extinctive prescription based on the principle of trust and good faith even though it meets the requirements for its application. Therefore, the "reasonable period of time" of the above exercise of the right should be limited to a short period equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, unless there