The judgment below

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. 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 if an obligee exercised his/her right within a considerable period of time that the obligee could expect the completion of extinctive prescription, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse

2. citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that: (a) on March 30, 2010, the lower court: (b) citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, based on the fact-finding decision, referring to the “The Committee for the Conciliation of History for the Truth and Reconciliation” (hereinafter “the Committee”), the five applicants for the truth-finding and the five-five persons, who did not request the truth-finding to be victims during the 10-year period from October 1946 before the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea on August 15, 1948; and (c) as victims of the 10-year period from the date of the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea to the Korean War; (d) on the grounds that the deceased was related to the Daegu 10-year Incident case, the lower court confirmed or presumed as the sacrific person who made a sacrifice by the military police; and (e) determined that the Plaintiffs were not able to have exercised the right of extinctive prescription against the Defendant’s extinctive prescription.

3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.