(a) The method of approving the obligation as a ground for interrupting prescription;

B. The case holding that if Party A appeared as a witness in the administrative litigation and stated that “A borrowed gold of KRW 35 million from Party B,” this constitutes the approval of the obligation, which is the ground for interrupting extinctive prescription

A. Approval as the ground for the interruption of the statute of limitations is established by expressing that the debtor who is the party to the statute of limitations is aware of the existence of the right to the person who will lose the right due to the completion of the statute of limitations, or his/her representative, who is the party to the statute of limitations. In this context, the method of indication is not required in any form, and it is not implicitly explicit.

B. The case holding that if Party A appeared as a witness in the administrative litigation and testified to the examination of Party B’s attorney, “A borrowed a gold of KRW 35 million from Party B,” this constitutes the approval of the obligation, which is the ground for the interruption of extinctive prescription, on the ground that the loan obligation to Party B was approved.

(b)Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu21541 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 218)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Busan High Court Decision 91Na6450 delivered on November 29, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Approval as the ground for the interruption of the prescription is established by expressing that the debtor who is the party to the benefit of the prescription is aware of the existence of the right to the person who will lose the right due to the completion of the prescription, or his/her agent. In this case, the method of indication is not required in any form, but should be regardless of the explicit cases.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's principal and interest claim amounting to KRW 35 million against the defendant as of January 10, 1980 has expired by prescription as follows.

In other words, according to macroscopic evidence, the plaintiff agreed to and lent the above interest rate 2% per month to the defendant on the above date and December 30 of the same year, and made a provisional registration under the name of the plaintiff on the real estate owned by the defendant as collateral, and then on March 10 of the same year, the settlement prior to the settlement prior to the defendant's application that the defendant would make a principal registration on the above provisional registration unless he pays 35 million won to the plaintiff by June 10 of the same year. Since the defendant did not fulfill his obligation under the above settlement prior to the above lawsuit, the defendant did not make a principal registration on the above real estate on October 13 of the same year pursuant to the above settlement prior to the above settlement prior to the above lawsuit, the non-party Busan District Office had been present at the above 1980 minutes of global income tax and defense tax and additional tax against the defendant, and the defendant requested the cancellation of the above provisional registration on the plaintiff's real estate as a witness at the 190th of the above 190th of the above date.

In light of the records, first of all, the fact-finding by the court below is justified, and if the defendant, as determined by the court below, made a statement in the administrative litigation procedure as stated in its decision, it constitutes the approval of the obligation, which is the cause of interrupting extinctive prescription

The judgment of the court below based on the same view is correct, and it cannot be said that it is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for interrupting prescription.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)