1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)9 of the Civil Procedure Act are revoked, and this part is revoked.

1. The following facts are apparent in light of records:

On March 7, 2008, the plaintiffs et al. filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of the amount corresponding to the amount of damages indicated in the attached inheritance relation and the damages table (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap22325). On May 28, 2009, the above court dismissed the plaintiff's claim on May 28, 2009.

(Case of Review). (b)

In the judgment subject to a retrial, the Plaintiffs asserted that the state’s assertion of extinctive prescription was against the principle of good faith or constitutes abuse of rights.

For this reason, the judgment subject to a retrial is subject to the control of the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our civil law. As such, ① an obligor has made it impossible or considerably difficult for the obligee to exercise his right or the interruption of prescription before the completion of the prescription, ② an obligee has committed an act to believe such an act is unnecessary, ② an obligee has become unable to exercise his right; ③ the obligor has made the right holder trust, ④ the need to protect the obligee, ④ the obligor has great need to receive repayment of the obligation, and there are special circumstances such as the obligor’s receipt of repayment of obligation under the same conditions, and thus, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of the extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.

However, the state's assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription does not constitute abuse of rights against the principle of good faith on the sole ground that the state has a duty to protect the people.