beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, without dispute, is an educational foundation that operates the “Korea High School” located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangdong-gu, 832, and the Defendant graduated from the said school on February 10, 2014.
2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Defendant claimed KRW 1,450,80 for tuition fees in 2013, KRW 352,800 for school operation support funds in 2013, KRW 67,600 for textbooks in 2013, KRW 250,250 for meal expenses (in September, March 2012, April 2013, March 5, 2013), KRW 2,219,820 for after-school education expenses in 2013, and KRW 92,870 for after-school education expenses in 2013, and KRW 5,500 for 2,209,820 for the Defendant’s defense of the extinction of prescription period.
Therefore, the above claim asserted by the plaintiff is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of one year as "the principal of the school with respect to the education, awareness, and lodging of students and veterinarys" under Article 164 subparagraph 4 of the Civil Code, and the short-term extinctive prescription of one year is applicable, and the above claim is obvious in the records that the period of one year has already lapsed on July 16, 2015, which is the date of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified, and therefore, the plaintiff's above claim is groundless.
As to this, the plaintiff is not capable of taking legal measures against the defendant who is a student status, the plaintiff has provided guidance for the payment of unpaid tuition fees only through text messages, mail, etc., and the defendant has filed the lawsuit in this case against the defendant who is waiting to become an adult after graduation, and the defendant's assertion that the completion of the statute of limitations is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith. However, as alleged by the plaintiff, it is difficult to view the defendant's defense for the completion of the statute of limitations as a violation of the principle of good faith or as an abuse of rights, and there is no other evidence.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is different.