Requirements and method of approval as grounds for suspending extinctive prescription, and the time such approval takes effect.

Approval as a ground for the interruption of prescription shall be established when the obligor who is a party to the benefit of prescription expresses that the obligor is aware of the existence of the right to the obligor or his/her agent, who is a party to the benefit of prescription. In this case, the method of indication shall not require any form, and shall not require any express or implied way, but the effect of the interruption of prescription due to approval shall accrue when notice of approval reaches the other party.

Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da947 delivered on April 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 1595), 91Da41064, 41071 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong1992, 3247)

Plaintiff’s Attorney Seo-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Incheon Metropolitan City

Incheon District Court Decision 94Na5380 delivered on June 2, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Approval as a ground for the interruption of prescription is established when an obligor who is a party to the benefit of prescription expresses that the obligor is aware of the existence of the right to the obligor or his/her agent, who is a party to the benefit of prescription. In such a case, the method of indication does not require any form, but does not require any explicit or implied way (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da947, Apr. 14, 1992). However, the effect of the interruption of prescription due to approval shall arise when notice of approval reaches the other party.

Therefore, in light of the above purport, the notice of the receipt of liquidation money posted by the defendant in two daily newspapers as the time of the original adjudication does not indicate that the debtor who is the party subject to the benefit of prescription would lose his right due to the completion of the statute of limitations or his/her agent is aware of the existence of his/her right. In addition, since the notice of the receipt of liquidation money sent by the defendant to the plaintiff does not have the effect of the interruption of prescription due to the approval since the notice of approval was not delivered to the plaintiff, the decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the statute of limitations was interrupted due to the defendant's debt approval, and there is no error of law in the decision contrary to the Supreme Court decision pointing out in the ground for appeal as to the approval of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)