The meaning of claims aiming at the provision of money or goods within a period not exceeding one year which is the subject of short-term extinctive prescription.

The purpose of a claim for the provision of money or goods within a period of not more than one year under Article 163(1) of the Civil Act is to mean a claim which is paid regularly for a period of not more than one year, and it does not mean a claim whose maturity is not more than one year.

Article 163 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 64Da1731 delivered on February 16, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1976Da166 delivered on April 13, 1965, Decision 65Da220 delivered on April 13, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1949 delivered on April 199, Decision 163(4)265 of the Civil Act)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (79 Gohap3959) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay 3,858,545 won to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

If Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Supplementary Note) without dispute over the establishment, were collected in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 (Supplementary Deed) presumed to be the whole authenticity, and the plaintiff collected the whole purport of the pleading on Oct. 20, 1965, the payment period of KRW 2,00,000 shall be February 28, 1966; interest shall be KRW 10,000 per annum; damages for delay shall be at the rate of KRW 36,00 per annum; Provided, That the rate of interest and damages for delay shall be at the rate of KRW 5,00 per annum; thereafter, according to the non-party association's default, the plaintiff applied for voluntary auction of secured real estate owned by the above non-party association at the Seoul District Court, and around May 197, 197, the plaintiff applied for a decision to commence the auction of the above case to repay the loan money to the non-party 20,000 won.

With respect to the defendant who is a joint and several surety by the plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of interest amounting to KRW 72,328 and damages for delay calculated according to the rate determined by the plaintiff within the limit prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act from the next day until December 24, 1973, the defendant's above interest and damages for delay are claims corresponding to the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 163 (1) of the Civil Act, and thus, the above interest and damages for delay have expired due to the completion of the prescription period.

On the other hand, a claim for the payment of money or goods within a period of one year under Article 163 (1) of the Civil Act refers to a claim for a fixed period of not more than one year, and since the term of repayment does not mean a claim for a period of not more than one year, it shall not include the interest and damages for delay on the case extinguished as a repayment once even if the term of repayment does not exceed one year, so the defendant's defense that the right was extinguished by the short-term extinctive prescription of not more than three years is without merit.

Even if the interest and delay damages claim of the family case are not corresponding to the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years, the defendant defense that the plaintiff was extinguished due to the plaintiff's failure to exercise his right for ten years from February 28, 1966, which was the due date of the loan of this case, the period of extinctive prescription of general credit. As recognized above, as long as the real estate was seized on May 1972 by the court below's voluntary decision to commence voluntary auction of the secured real estate owned by the above non-party partnership, which is the principal debtor, the period of prescription is suspended at the same time as seizure. Since the interruption of prescription against the non-party partnership, which is the principal debtor, is effective against the defendant who is the joint and several surety, it shall be deemed that the cause for extinctive prescription expires, the period of the above auction case was 10 years from December 25, 1973 to July 30, 1979, there is no reason for the defendant's defense against the above ten-year extinctive prescription period.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 3,858,545 won (72,328 + 7283,786,217) in total with interest and delay damages claimed by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted. The judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just and there is no ground to appeal by the defendant, and it is dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Yoon Young-young (Presiding Judge)