beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the following parts, the part concerning "the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription" (from No. 4, No. 7, and No. 10, the judgment of the court of first instance) is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription
A. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant claim for liquidated damages under the instant construction contract occurred from December 15, 2012, which was the day following the date of the completion of the agreement, and the instant claim was filed on April 30, 2016, which was three years after the date of completion of the agreement, and accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the said claim was completed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant lawsuit was filed within three years from April 30, 2013, which was the day following the date of the completion of the compensatory damages claim, and that the Plaintiff’s agent’s claim for compensatory damages was interrupted by stating that the said claim was filed to the Defendant on November 28, 2013.
B. In this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted whether the extinctive prescription period of the instant liquidated damages claim is expired or not under the premise that the period of extinctive prescription is three years. However, inasmuch as the assertion on which the statute of prescription applies is not an assertion on the facts that constitute the elements of establishing the legal effect of extinction of the right, but merely expressed an opinion on the interpretation or application of the law, such assertion is not subject to the principle of pleading.
Therefore, (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Da258124, Mar. 22, 2017). The claim for compensation for delay based on a construction contract does not constitute a claim against the contractor against the contractor for a contract, for which the three-year short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act is applied, and the contract for construction is different.