The judgment below

The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the Defendant’s ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the record, the lower court is justifiable to have recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of

2. As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of incidental appeal and the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by tort as to the Defendant’s ground of incidental appeal No. 3, a fact-finding court may determine the amount at its discretion, taking into account various circumstances into account.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377 delivered on April 23, 199). Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the amount of consolation money recognized by the lower court cannot be deemed as significantly contrary to the principle of equity, and thus, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the lower court’s discretion on the calculation of consolation money.

3. As to the defendant's second ground for appeal

A. The exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act, so if an obligor had shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the prescription after the completion of extinctive prescription, and had the right holder trust it, and if an obligor exercised his right within a considerable period of time that the obligor could expect the completion of extinctive prescription, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription cannot

However, denying the validity of the completion of prescription based on the principle of trust and good faith is extremely exceptional measures for the system of extinctive prescription, which takes as its ideology the achievement of legal stability, the remedy for difficulties in proving, and the sanction for neglect of the exercise of rights, and thus, it should be recognized as limited.