Where existing debts are approved, the additional point of extinctive prescription;

The contract that reduces part of the existing debt amount and pays interest on the remainder by adding interest to it is a quasi-loan contract, and this contract is deemed to include the approval of the debt. The extinctive prescription will run again from this point.

Article 168 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (64 A. 99)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant, from December 20, 1962 to the full payment of KRW 110,00 to the plaintiffs, and from December 20, 1962 to the full payment of KRW 20 per annum, applies for a judgment and a declaration of provisional execution.

The facts that the plaintiff 1 has claims against the defendant for food costs from August 1960 to October 10 (the defendant asserts that the amount would be 24,205 won, unlike the following recognition) are not disputed between the above parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2 (written statement) which can be established by the non-party 1's testimony (1,2) and Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the non-party 2's testimony and the arguments by the non-party 1 (1,2) are not consistent with the above 10-year statute of limitations, and it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1's claim against the non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's defense.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs 110,00 won and 20 percent per annum within the limit prescribed by the Interest Limitation Act from December 20, 1962 to the full payment. Thus, the judgment of the court below is unfair, but there is no appeal by the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not proper, and the appeal is not reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Yong-dae (Presiding Judge)