본문 바로가기
  • Home

As the reason for the suspension of Extinct prescription and Litigation profit of Resignation

  • Legal Theory & Practice Review
  • Abbr : LTPR
  • 2019, 7(1), pp.11-47
  • Publisher : The Korea Society for Legal Theory and Practice Inc.
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law

Kim Seung Rae 1 LEE YOUN HWAN 2

1목원대학교
2건양대학교

Candidate

ABSTRACT

Since the Supreme Court has the power to make a final ruling, if a party who has been awarded a preliminary injunction raises the same claim as the preliminary injunction against the other party. There is no benefit of. However, in the case of an imminent 10 year period, which is the statute of limitations due to an exceptional case, there is a cow gain for the suspension of the statute. Furthermore, in such a case, the ruling of the court shall not be contrary to the contents of the preliminary hearing of the case, and the court of last instance shall not be able to re-examine whether all the requirements to assert the established right are available. The Supreme Court has maintained the jurisprudence that rescue for the suspension of the prescription has the benefit of the cow. This is still valid now. There is no reasonable ground to limit the number of cases of toxic judgments to one, even though it is not limited to one case in the case of seizure, pressurization, or approval, which is another cause of termination. In addition, it is equitable to permit the creditors to suspend the prescription, even if the debts are determined by decision, as long as the debtor can escape from it entirely or partially through bankruptcy or regeneration. The fact that the majority of the objections of the objection allow for the resignation and the effect of the extension of the statute of limitations is given to the effect of the termination of the statute of limitations through the second request of the judgment as well as the right to enforce foreclosure etc. This is not a result of helping the creditors to abuse the jurisdiction of the creditors by obtaining the right of enforcement of the extension of the statute for the bonds which were not exercised even though they had acquired it. In conclusion, the lawsuits should be dismissed because they are the same lawsuits for which the decision to make the recommendation has been finalized. Nevertheless, there is a misunderstanding of the law on the claim as a reason for suspending the statute of limitation and the reason for existence of the statute of extinction. There is a wrongdoing that has affected the outcome of a ruling because it is illegal to misunderstand.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.