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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. An obligor who is entitled to the benefit of prescription may waive the benefit of prescription after the completion of the extinctive prescription, and this is an expression of intent to seek an effect of not receiving any legal benefit due to the completion of the prescription.

In addition, the determination as to whether there exists an expression of intent to waive the prescriptive benefit should be made objectively and reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of society in accordance with the concept of social justice and equity by comprehensively taking into account the substance, motive, and background of the act or expression of intent as indicated, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties to achieve by expressing their intent, etc.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on February 28, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da21556, Feb. 28, 2013). 2, the lower court determined that D’s waiver of prescription interest cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that D’s application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures (Seoul District Court 2012Da2721, Sept. 20, 2012) reported the Defendant’s claim as individual rehabilitation claims on the creditors’ list; and that Article 32 subparag. 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) is suspended in such a case. This is the result, and the obligor’s approval after the completion of prescription is deemed as the waiver of prescription interest. Furthermore, D was deemed to have waived the statute of limitations interest, and that the said application for individual rehabilitation

In addition, D did not raise any objection to the distribution of KRW 50 million to the Defendant based on the instant collateral security that was created to secure the Defendant’s above claim on June 5, 2013, which was the date of distribution of the instant case, as of the date of distribution, D renounced the prescription benefit by approving the Defendant’s claim.

For this reason, the court below accepted the defendant's defense of waiver of the statute of limitations and applied the defendant's above claim to the court.