1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows, with the exception of the re-use of Articles 11 and 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 199Da27604, Dec. 9, 199). As such, the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes the same as the statement of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases. 2. Although there are special circumstances under which it is impossible to expect the exercise of rights due to de facto disability that prevents the exercise of rights before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the obligor’s assertion for the completion of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da27604, Dec. 9, 1994). However, even if the removal of disability, the obligor’s defense of extinctive prescription period should be limited within a reasonable period, and such “reasonable period” should not be extended by the period of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, it can be allowed for the state, which is the debtor, to claim the completion of extinctive prescription as an abuse of rights.