Of the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant), the part of the principal lawsuit and counterclaim claim concerning property damage.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal as to the completion of extinctive prescription, the court shall render a judgment of fact-finding with free conviction in accordance with logical and empirical rules on the basis of the principle of logic and equity, taking into account the overall purport of pleadings and the outcome of the examination of evidence, so long as it does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the value judgment and fact-finding belong to the discretion of the fact-finding court

(Article 202 and Article 432 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court below accepted the judgment of the first instance, and found that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “the Defendant”)’s request for the payment of insurance proceeds to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on several occasions from before the expiration of the statute of limitations of the right to claim the insurance proceeds constitutes the peremptory notice which serves as the cause of interruption of the statute of limitations, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s person in charge of the Plaintiff’s company partially paid insurance proceeds to the Defendant and sought suspension of performance until the Defendant notifies the Defendant of the existence and amount of the right to claim the insurance proceeds, and thus, the Defendant’s claim for the payment of insurance proceeds against the Plaintiff was not extinguished by the statute of limitations.

The part of the ground of appeal disputing the fact-finding among the judgment of the court below is merely an error in the selection of evidence and the judgment on the value of evidence belonging to the free trial of the fact-finding court.

In addition, examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is given peremptory notice and expression of intent as grounds for interrupting prescription, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.