[1] The method of approving obligations as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription

[2] The case holding that a contract for construction work constitutes a debt approval where the contractor sent a notice demanding the owner of the adjacent house to obtain compensation for damages directly from the owner

[1] Approval as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription shall be established by expressing that the debtor who is the party to the benefit of extinctive prescription, is aware of the existence of the right to the person who will lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription or his/her agent. The method of indication does not require any form, but does not require any explicit or implied case.

[2] In a case where Defendant (contractor) performed underground excavation works for new construction of a building based on a construction contract and inflicted damages equivalent to the cost of restoration work on neighboring housing owned by the Plaintiff, the case holding that the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s obligation to recover construction cost by interpreting that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to receive the payment directly from the owner according to an agreement between the owner and the Defendant on the method of payment, on the premise that the Defendant’s entries in the notice that the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff are the existence of the obligation of restoration construction cost to the Plaintiff

[1] Article 168 subparag. 3 and Article 177 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 168 subparag. 3 and Article 177 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu21541 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 218), Supreme Court Decision 92Da947 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1595), Supreme Court Decision 95Da30178 delivered on September 29, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3622)

[Judgment of the court below]

corporation of this kind and quality comprehensive construction

Daejeon District Court Decision 98Na1889 delivered on July 9, 1998

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below held that, as the defendant implemented underground excavation works for new construction on the land owned by the non-party under the construction contract with the non-party, the defendant is liable for damages caused by the damage that requires 25,359,647 won of the cost of restoring the wall crack, underground water leakage, water leakage, etc., to the housing owned by the non-party, which is adjacent thereto. However, after that, the plaintiff demanded several damages on September 1, 1993, while the plaintiff demanded the repair and compensation of the building to the defendant on December 13, 1996, after sending the notice demanding the repair and compensation of the building to the defendant on September 1, 1993, the plaintiff's right to claim damages caused by the defendant's tort has expired three years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription from September 1, 1993, since the defendant notified the non-party that the damage compensation liability of this case was against the non-party, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant approved the plaintiff's damage compensation liability for the plaintiff.

2. Approval as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription shall be established by expressing that the debtor who is a party to the benefit of prescription, is aware of the existence of the right to the person who will lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription or his/her agent, and the method of indication shall not require any form, but shall not require any explicit or implied case (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da947, Apr. 14, 1992).

However, examining Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, which the court below rejected, it is the notice that the defendant sent to the plaintiff on two occasions on Jan. 27, 1995 and Oct. 6, 1995. As to the damage of the plaintiff's building, the plaintiff sent a detailed statement of recovery expenses (written appraisal) calculated by a certified public appraisal appraisal corporation to the owner of the building in accordance with the agreement, and requested the plaintiff to pay the remaining amount in preference to the plaintiff in accordance with the agreement. The plaintiff already notified such progress to the plaintiff, and the owner argued that the damage restoration expenses of the neighboring building should be deducted from the claim against the defendant's nature. The plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff would be resolved through consultation with the owner of the building in accordance with the appraisal document is that the non-party's claim that the plaintiff would be compensated for the damage restoration expenses, and the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff would not have agreed to the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff would be paid the compensation for damages from the plaintiff's 25,359,647.

In full view of the purport of both parties’ assertion and the text and text of the evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2, it is reasonable to interpret the payment method as to the purport that the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to receive it directly from the Nonparty according to an agreement between the Nonparty and the Defendant. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s obligation to recover construction cost.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which rejected the effectiveness of the interruption of prescription due to the remaining interpretation that the Defendant’s obligation only belongs to the non-party with the restoration cost obligation, which is interpreted as unlawful means, shall be erroneous in interpreting the meaning of the above evidence, thereby violating the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the approval as a ground for the interruption of extinctive prescription, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)