All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. additional determination” to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiffs in this court, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) With respect to the assertion of waiver of the extinguished benefit of prescription, “approval” of an obligation as a waiver of the extinguished benefit of the relevant legal doctrine is possible in an implied manner because there is no restriction on the method of indication. However, at least, the interpretation of whether an obligor has expressed his/her intent to the existence of an obligation to the obligee is established by expressing his/her intent to the obligee. In full view of the substance, motive and circumstance of the indicated act or expression of intent, the purpose and genuine intent that the parties intend to achieve through the expression of intent, etc., the determination of whether there is an obligation should be made objectively and reasonably in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of society in line with the ideology of social justice and equity (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da25299, Jul. 24, 2008). Meanwhile, in a criminal trial proceeding, whether it constitutes an implied approval of the obligation to compensate for damages exceeding the deposited amount should be made by comprehensively taking account of the cause and purpose of deposit as indicated in the deposit document, the details and circumstances leading up to deposit and the amount of damages 2015.

It is so argued that this is relevant.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 9 and 10 submitted by the plaintiffs in this Court, the defendant is related.