beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows, with the exception that the defendant added "2. Additional Judgment" to the argument added by the court of first instance, and that the third part of the third part of the judgment of first instance is "C", and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. On June 30, 2010, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act with respect to the Defendant’s lease agreement as of June 30, 2010 and the obligation in arrears under the instant lease agreement. As such, as of June 2, 2015, the Defendant filed the instant lawsuit, totaling KRW 3,90,000 (from October 2, 2011 to May 201) of the obligation in arrears incurred prior to the said three years (from 50,000 to May 201) as of June 2, 2015, the period of extinctive prescription expired. (2) The obligation in arrears incurred prior to July 8, 2012, which was the Defendant’s acceptance of the Defendant’s obligation, the
Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.
B. Determination 1) In the event of multiple monetary obligations arising from a continuous monetary transaction between the same parties, as long as a partial performance of an obligation is made as part of the obligation, the interruption of prescription takes effect as to the entire obligation. It is reasonable to deem that, barring any special circumstance, in the event that several monetary obligations exist between the same parties due to the continuous transaction between the same parties, the obligor has discharged the entire obligation as part of the entire obligation, and barring any special circumstance, the obligation is deemed to have been discharged with the approval of the entire several existing obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da1790, May 13, 1980).