In a case where Gap corporation, which runs a construction business, agreed to pay Eul the user fee for using the guest rooms and cafeterias at the end of each month during the construction period, and the period of extinctive prescription of the above resort user fee claim, which consists of accommodation charges and food charges, comes into question, the case holding that the statute of limitations is one year, even if Gap corporation agreed to pay the resort user fee on a monthly basis, the right to the resort user fee claim is "right to accommodation charges and food charges" under Article 164 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, and the statute of limitations is one year.

In a case where Gap corporation, which runs a construction business, agreed to pay Eul fees for using the guest rooms and cafeterias at the end of each month during the construction period, and the period of extinctive prescription of the aforementioned resort user fee claim comprised of accommodation charges and food charges, the case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that Article 164 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act provides that Article 164 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall expire unless it is exercised one year, on the grounds that Article 164 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act provides that the claim for accommodation charges, restaurant, large hotel, entertainment place, accommodation charges, admission fees, expenses for consumption, and substitute payments shall expire unless it is exercised one year, even if Gap corporation agreed to pay the resort user fee monthly, the claim for the resort user fee is "claim for accommodation charges and food charges" as provided by Article 164 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, and the period of extinctive prescription is one year or less, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription shall be three years.

Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act and Article 164 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Neba Bus, Attorneys Kim Young-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Suwon District Court Decision 2018Na79209 decided September 4, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion regarding the violation of the duty of explanation regarding the conclusion of the usage fee contract

The lower court determined that the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the user fees from May 1, 2016 to July 29, 2016, including the sum of the user fees from November 1, 2015 to July 29, 2016, when the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the user fees for the use of the guest rooms and restaurant of this case during the construction period, and the number of employees invested in the construction from November 1, 2015 to July 29, 2016.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principle as to extinctive prescription

A. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant’s fee for cooking in the instant case from May 1, 2016 to July 29, 2016 constituted accommodation charges and food charges, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the instant fee at the end of each month.

B. However, Article 164 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act provides, however, that the statute of limitations shall expire if the Defendant agrees to pay the royalty of the instant resort in monthly unit, the claim for the royalty of the instant resort is “a claim for accommodation charges and food charges” as provided by Article 164 Subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, and the statute of limitations shall be deemed to be one year.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the period of extinctive prescription was three years by deeming that the instant resort fee claim for the said period was “a claim for the payment of money for a period of less than one year” under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 164 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation contained in the grounds

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)