As such, it should be viewed that there was an error of misapprehending the legal principles or failing to conduct a trial, since the good faith of the auction claim and the existence of the cause of interruption of prescription are not examined.

Since this case's application for auction has been filed three years after the due date of the Promissory Notes, the extinctive prescription can be deemed to have expired unless there is any ground for the interruption of prescription. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, although the extinctive prescription of the claim for auction of this case has expired and the secured claim has expired

Articles 393 and 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Re-appellant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 69Ra397 delivered on September 11, 1969

The original decision is reversed, and

The case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil District Court.

The re-appellant's agent's ground of re-appeals

According to Articles 70, 77, and 78 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the time limit for payment of each of the Promissory Notes shall expire unless the time limit for payment of each of the Promissory Notes is exercised within three years from the maturity date. According to a copy of the Promissory Notes attached to the record, the time limit for payment of each of the Promissory Notes shall be April 15, 1965, and the receipt date of each of the above time limit for payment of the Promissory Notes shall be September 11, 1968. Thus, the time limit for the application for auction of this case shall be deemed to have expired unless there is any ground for suspending the prescription if the Promissory Notes claim in this case is a promissorysory Notes claim. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as seen earlier without examining the nature of the auction claim and the existence of a ground for interrupting prescription

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges in accordance with Articles 413 and 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu