The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If the obligee’s ground of appeal on the period for exercising the obligee’s right ceases to exist objectively, the obligee’s exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of the Civil Act, and thus, the obligee is objectively unable to exercise the right. Thus, the obligor’s assertion on the completion of extinctive prescription cannot be allowed as abuse

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da66969, Sept. 8, 2011). However, even in cases where there were grounds for an obligee’s failure to exercise his/her right objectively, the obligee may avoid the obligor’s defense of extinctive prescription, only if he/she exercises his/her right within a reasonable period from the elimination of such disability.

Here, the issue of whether there was an exercise of right within a reasonable period is determined by comprehensively taking account of the relationship between the obligee and the obligor, and whether there were any special circumstances to delay the obligee’s exercise of right. However, denying the validity of the statute of limitations based on the principle of trust and good faith ought to be limited to an exceptional limitation on the extinctive prescription system, which is based on the principle of trust and good faith to achieve legal stability, to relieve the difficulty in proving, and to impose sanctions on neglect of exercise

(2) The Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 16, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819, May 16, 201). Therefore, even in cases where a State agency was indicted on the basis of evidence, etc. collected by an illegal act, etc. during the investigation process, and a final judgment of conviction was granted, but the existence of grounds for retrial was revealed later