beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The plaintiffs.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. The exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act, so if an obligor had shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the prescription after the completion of extinctive prescription, and if an obligee exercised his/her right within a considerable period of time that the obligee could expect the completion of extinctive prescription, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription is not permissible as an abuse of rights
However, denying the validity of the statute of limitations based on the principle of trust and good faith is extremely exceptional measures for the system of the statute of limitations that takes the ideology of legal stability, remedy for difficulty in proving, and sanction for neglect of the exercise of rights. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the “reasonable period” of the exercise of rights should be limited to a short-term period equivalent to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, and where it is inevitable to extend the period due to special circumstances in individual cases, it cannot exceed three years, which is the short-term extinctive prescription period stipulated in Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, even if it is inevitable for a claim for damages due to tort, in consideration of the fact that the period cannot exceed three years, which is the short-term extinctive prescription period stipulated in Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, in the case of the Korean War before and after the Korean War (hereinafter “Mediation Committee”) to assert the completion of the statute of limitations as to it does not constitute abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.
(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 13, 2013, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da203529 Decided July 25, 2013, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da203529).
The judgment below
reasons.