The relationship between the duty to exercise the right of explanation and the duty to exercise the right of explanation as to whether the issuance of the bill is invalid or not and whether it is a defense to the expiration of the statute

It cannot be interpreted that the new Civil Code deleted the provisions on the use of the statute of limitations, and it cannot be interpreted that the benefit should be granted ex officio by recognizing the fact of completion of the statute of limitations in a lawsuit, notwithstanding the existence of a defense

Article 184 of the Civil Act, Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Act

Jeju Bank

Maternal tin

Seoul High Court Decision 62Na285 delivered on July 6, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 62Na285 delivered on July 6, 196

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The gist of the grounds of appeal as stated in the grounds of appeal and the supplementary statement in the grounds of appeal submitted by the defendant is that the defendant's obligation under the bill of limitations is extinguished by the completion of prescription, and thus, the court below should have judged that the defendant's obligation under the bill of limitations is automatically extinguished without any need to be invoked. In addition, since the use of the statute of limitations is not necessarily required to be explicitly and explicitly, it may not be implicitly and explicitly, as long as the defendant resists that there is no obligation under the bill, such as the forgery of the issuance of the bill of this case and the lack of time, it shall be deemed that the completion of the statute of limitations has to be invoked, and if it was

However, like the fact that the new Civil Act deleted the provisions on prohibition against the waiver of the statute of limitations as it is, or there exists a new provision prohibiting the extension or aggravation of the statute of limitations by juristic act, the benefit therefrom may be waived after the completion of the statute of limitations, and even though the claim is extinguished after the completion of the statute of limitations, it shall not be construed that the benefit should be granted ex officio by recognizing the completion of the statute of limitations, notwithstanding the fact that the claim has been extinguished after the completion of the statute of limitations. If the recourse of the statute of limitations or the defense on the completion of the statute of limitations is not always explicit but is interpreted as a defense upon the completion of the statute of limitations, it shall not be deemed that there is a defense that the statute of limitations has expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. However, in this case, the claim for the bill of limitations cannot be viewed as a defense that the failure to exercise the right to know on whether the statute of limitations has expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations does not constitute an unlawful act under the civil litigation system based on the principle of pleading.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, by applying Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-chul (Presiding Judge)