beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The appeal costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The primary part of the claim is the claim.
Reasons
1. The plaintiffs' assertion in the court of first instance is not significantly different from the plaintiffs' assertion in the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, in addition to stating "additional judgment" as to the plaintiffs' assertion that is emphasized by this court, and therefore it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that, on July 13, 2012, the Defendants’ issuance of promissory notes and the preparation of a notarial deed in order to secure the Plaintiffs’ loan claims constitutes “approval of obligations,” which is the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription, and thus, extinctive prescription shall run from September 21, 2012, the day following the payment date of the said promissory
B. Approval of an obligation as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription shall be established by expressing that the obligor, who is the party to the benefit of prescription, is aware of the existence of the right to the obligor or his/her agent, who is the party to the benefit of prescription, is to lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription, and the method of indication does not require any form, but can be expressed in an implied manner without necessarily requiring an explicit indication. However, the implied recognition indication should be made in such a way that the other party to the obligor, at least on the premise that the obligor is aware of the existence and amount of the obligation, can be inferred by expressing that the obligor is aware of the obligation, and the fact that the obligor has obtained the debt approval as a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription, must be proved by the obligee’s assertion.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da59959 Decided February 17, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da36735 Decided September 30, 2010, etc.).
However, in light of the above legal principles, the Defendants’ aforementioned facts are examined in light of the following reasons.