The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act. Therefore, in a case where an obligor had shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the prescription after the completion of extinctive prescription and had the obligee trusted it, and where an obligee exercised his right within a considerable period of time that the obligor could expect the exercise of right, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription cannot

However, denying the validity of the statute of limitations based on the principle of trust and good faith is extremely exceptional measures for the system of the statute of limitations that takes the ideology of legal stability, remedy for difficulty in proving, and sanction for neglect of the exercise of rights. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the “reasonable period” of the exercise of rights should be limited to a short-term period equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, and where it is inevitable to extend the period due to special circumstances in individual cases, it cannot exceed three years, which is the short-term extinctive prescription period stipulated in Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, even if it is inevitable for a claim for damages due to tort, in consideration of the fact that the period cannot exceed three years, which is the short-term extinctive prescription period stipulated in Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, in the case of the Korean War before and after the Korean War (hereinafter “Mediation Committee”) to assert the completion of the statute of limitations as to it does not constitute abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 13, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da203529 Decided July 25, 2013, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Reorganization Committee’s resolution on August 18, 2009.