Whether a partial performance by a joint and several surety and interruption of prescription against a principal obligor

Even if one of the joint and several guarantors has repaid part of the debt to the creditor after the expiration date of the prescription period for the principal debtor, it cannot be said that there is a reason to interrupt the prescription separately proceeding against the principal debtor.

Article 440 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (79Ka35348)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On September 11, 1961, the provisional attachment decision made on the real estate recorded in the separate sheet on September 11, 1961 between the deceased except 1 and the respondent (short-term 4294) is revoked.

Costs of application shall be borne by the respondent and a declaration of provisional execution

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The request of applicants is dismissed.

Litigation Costs shall be assessed against all applicants in the first and second trials.

The respondent shall file an application with the Seoul District Court for provisional attachment of 1961 (short-term 4294) No. 4083 for several real estate owned by 1 other than the applicant, and the court shall make a provisional attachment order on September 11, 1961 2, 205 for five hundred and sixty-five (one hundred and sixty-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-five-seven one-five-five-five-five-five-eight one-five-eight one-five-eight one-five-five-five-five-eight-five-five-five-five-eight one-seven nine-seven nine-seven nine-eight one-eight nine-seven nine-seven nine-seven nine-seven nine-eight nine-seven nine-five-seven nine-five-five.

Applicant asserts that the above provisional attachment decision should be cancelled due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription on July 6, 1975 from July 10, 1965, which was 10 years since the date when the above judgment became final and conclusive due to the suit on the merits of the provisional attachment case 2. 1. 7. 6. 6. 1. 6. 6. 6. 2. 6. 1, the respondent notified the applicant to perform the above obligation by tracking the debtor's location and property to receive the full amount of the above claim, and the applicant's 194,483 . 1. 2. 1. 2. 196 . 1. 6. 2. 196 . 1. 6. 2. 196 . 1. 6. 3 of the applicant's debt and the remaining 1. 4. 1. 16 . 1. 3 7. 1, 1965. 1

Therefore, first, the respondent's administrative efforts to trace the debtor's location and responsible property cannot be a ground for suspending the extinctive prescription, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the respondent notified the applicant to perform the obligation before the expiration of the prescription period, and then the cause for suspending the prescription cannot be a ground for suspending the prescription run since the applicant 1 paid part of the obligation before the expiration of the prescription period, and even if other joint and several sureties or the third purchaser of the object of provisional seizure have repaid part of the obligation, the respondent's assertion of the extinctive prescription period is without merit, and it is difficult for the respondent to claim suspending the prescription separately for the applicant. According to the whole purport of the statement and pleading of No. 3-1, No. 3-2, and No. 4, it is difficult for the applicant to claim that some of the real estate recorded in the attached list were purchased as railroad land by the Korea National Railroad and to respond to this, it is difficult for the applicant to find out the applicant's witness of provisional seizure, 1, 2, and 3 of the remaining purport of the claim and the remaining evidence.

Therefore, the above debt has become extinct as of July 6, 1975 after the expiration of 10 years from the date the judgment on the merits of the provisional seizure case became final and conclusive, and this shall be applicable to the case where the circumstances have changed after the provisional seizure. Accordingly, the applicant's request for revocation of the provisional seizure decision is justified, and the judgment of the court below to this effect is justified and dismissed as the respondent's appeal is without merit, and the appeal costs are assessed against the respondent.

Judges Park Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)