Prescription for partial performance of an obligation and for all an obligation:

Where several monetary obligations exist due to the continuous monetary transactions between the same parties, as long as a part of an obligation has been discharged as part of a part of the obligation, interruption of prescription shall be deemed to take effect with respect to the whole obligation, and where several monetary obligations exist due to continuous transactions between the same parties, if an obligor has discharged as part of the obligation the entire obligation, barring special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the obligation has been discharged with respect to the existing several obligations,

Article 177 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 77Na2017 decided July 14, 1978

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendant (1) through (5) are also examined, together, as well as the grounds of appeal by the Defendant (6) and the Defendant (7).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected as follows: (a) as long as the Defendants, other than Defendant Pyeong Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the following) have jointly and severally guaranteed the principal and interest of 20,000 won as stated in the judgment below's reasoning, 198.0 won and 200,000 won per share were assigned from 20,000 won per share to 30,000 won per share and appropriated as part of damages for delay of the current debt; (b) as part of the remaining 197, the agreement between the Plaintiff and Pyeong Industrial Co., Ltd. was concluded on July 10, 1968 with the Plaintiff; (c) the agreement on bill transactions from 1968 to 20,000 won per account per share; and (d) the agreement on bill transactions with the Plaintiff on July 26, 1968 to 19, some of the remaining debts owed by the Defendants were discharged to the Plaintiff as part of the total amount of 17,0,00,00,00,00,00,0,00,00,0,0,00,00,0.

Examining the evidence at the time of the original decision, the remaining Defendants except for the Large Industry Act shall be deemed to have jointly and severally guaranteed the principal and interest of 1968.7.10% on each of the above statements entered into between the Plaintiff and the Large Industry; the current account balance agreement of 1968.7.26% on July 26, 1968; and the Foreign Exchange Guarantee Agreement of 1968.7.30% on each of the above statements of the court below; the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have received one sheet of 200,000 won per face value from the Large Industry Act on October 29, 1971; the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the principal and interest were partially repaid and the remaining interest interest were the same as the date of the original decision at 10,000 won. The Plaintiff shall not be deemed to have been in violation of the rules of evidence during the process of fact-finding; and the remaining period of extinctive prescription of 167,000 won on each of the foregoing obligation shall be deemed to have been 97.7.67.1.67.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is the same as the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the approval of debt due to the lack of reason due to the incomplete hearing, and the completion and interruption of extinctive prescription due to partial repayment, etc.

All the arguments are bound to the effect that they are without merit.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)