beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court concerning this case is that each entry of evidence Nos. 21 and 22 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the following additional statement, the testimony of the witness L of the court of first instance as stated in the evidence No. 20 to 25 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance, “B” and the testimony of the witness of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the judgment on the additional claim is against the principle of trust and good faith and that it is not permissible as an abuse of rights, even if the Defendants were to have acknowledged the debt prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations.
However, the obligor’s exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations 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 Act. Thus, in special circumstances, such as where the obligor has made it impossible or considerably difficult for the obligee to exercise his right or interruption of prescription prior to the completion of the statute of limitations, has committed an act that makes the obligee believe such an act unnecessary, has objectively obstructed the obligee from exercising his right, or where the obligor has made the right holder trust it, there is a great need to protect the obligee, and there is a significant need to receive the repayment of the obligation by other creditors under the same conditions, etc., and the obligor’s refusal to perform the obligation is remarkably unfair or unfair, it cannot be allowed to assert the completion of the statute of limitations as abuse of rights against the principle of good faith.
However, if the debtor's claim for the completion of the statute of limitations is contrary to the good faith principle and constitutes abuse of rights, special circumstances as mentioned above should be recognized.