1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the part concerning the plaintiffs' assertion in the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance court's first instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second instance court's second

2. In the judgment of the Supreme Court of Korea (2009Da66969) that was similar to the 2009Da66969, the part of the plaintiffs, which were accepted, had a de facto disability that the plaintiffs could not exercise their rights objectively until the Supreme Court rejected the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription and recognized the liability for damages, and the plaintiffs exercised their rights by filing the lawsuit in this case within three years from September 8, 201 or from June 30, 201, which was sentenced by the Supreme Court to the same purport, in the case of No. 2009Da725999, which was another similar case. Thus, the defendant's defense

The extinctive prescription shall cease to run from the time when a right has arisen objectively and is able to exercise such right, and shall not run while such right is unable to be exercised.

In this context, the term "non-exercise of rights" refers to the cases where there is a disability in the exercise of rights, for example, such as the non-existence of a period or the non-performance of a condition, etc., and the exercise of rights is virtually difficult, does not constitute such reasons.

However, 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. Thus, in special circumstances where it is impossible to expect the exercise of the right due to the de facto disability that could not exercise the right objectively before the completion of prescription, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription

(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73957 Decided September 10, 2015). However, the same is applicable.