beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the admitting party of the judgment of the court of first instance states concerning this case are as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to the pertinent part, and therefore, the following are identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations for a short-term statute of limitations for three years is expired since the Plaintiff’s claim for terminal price and communication fee against the Plaintiff based on each of the instant contracts falls under the price for goods under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act and the fee for use under Article 163 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act.
The term "judicial claim" under Article 168 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code and Article 170 (1) of the Civil Code refers to a case where the right holder claims the prescription of the plaintiff as the defendant in the form of a lawsuit, which is the subject matter of lawsuit. However, in contrast, the case where the person who claims the prescription of the plaintiff as the plaintiff claims the right to the lawsuit as the defendant and actively claims the right in the lawsuit and accepted it. The effect of the interruption of prescription due to the above response act takes place when the defendant claims the right to the lawsuit by exercising his/her real right.
(Supreme Court Decision 208Da42416 Decided August 26, 2010). However, in this case, the lawsuit of this case seeking the confirmation that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation under each of the respective contracts of this case was filed on February 13, 2013. Accordingly, prior to the completion of the short-term extinctive prescription of the above three years, Defendant K’s written brief dated April 10, 2013, and Defendant L UBS’s written brief submitted on August 29, 2013 and actively asserted the existence of the Defendants’ claims against the Plaintiff’s respective claims. Accordingly, it is apparent that the Defendants’ extinctive prescription has run against each of the respective claims.