1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following additional determinations, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that “The Defendant, on October 24, 2014, stated in the preparatory document (Evidence A No. 12) dated 2014, the Daegu District Court 2014Kadan37108, stating that “The Plaintiff refused to reach an agreement with the Plaintiff, but the Defendant also did not think of the agreement with the Plaintiff,” and that the said preparatory document reached the Plaintiff on October 28, 2014, which constitutes an approval of debt, and thus, waiver of the statute of limitations benefits.”

On the other hand, the recognition of the obligation as the cause of interruption of the extinctive prescription is established by the notification of the so-called concept established by the obligor who is the party who is the party who is the party who is the party who is the party who receives the extinctive prescription benefit, indicating that the other party's right or obligation is known to the party who is the party

On the contrary, the debtor who receives the benefit of prescription in order to recognize waiver of the benefit of prescription after the completion of the statute of limitations requires the intent of an effect that the debtor would not receive legal benefit from the completion of the statute of limitations, so there was the approval of the debtor's obligation

Even if so, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an expression of intent to waive the benefit of extinctive prescription immediately.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da21556, Feb. 28, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the health team, the entire text of evidence Nos. 9 and 12, and the purport of the argument, are as follows: (a) the Defendant proposed to the Plaintiff, but did not reach an agreement by the Plaintiff’s refusal; and (b) the Defendant’s agreement.