1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation as to the instant case is as follows: (a) except for the addition of the grounds of the first instance judgment No. 7 and No. 20 (in addition), all except for the addition of the grounds of the first instance judgment as to the allegations that the Plaintiffs came to reach the court of this case; and (b) therefore, they are cited as it is by the text of Article 420

[Supplementary part] The plaintiffs asserts that the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription should not be allowed as being contrary to the good faith principle.

Of course, the exercise of the obligor’s right of defense based on the statute of limitations is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our civil law. Thus, in special cases where the obligor has made it impossible or considerably difficult for the obligee to exercise the obligee’s right or the interruption of prescription prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, has committed an act that makes the obligee believe that such a measure is unnecessary, has objectively obstructed the obligee from exercising its right, or the obligor has shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the statute of limitations after the completion of the statute of limitations, or where there exist special circumstances, such as where the obligor has made the obligee trust, the need to protect the obligee, and where other creditors of the same condition receive the repayment of the obligation, etc., making it considerably unreasonable or unfair to allow the

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the filing and preservation of the instant civil lawsuit, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the filing and preservation of the instant civil lawsuit, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.