본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

On the Presumption Doctrine of Waiver of the Benefit of Prescription - Focusing on the Supreme Court Case of July 24, 2025, 2023Da240299 -

  • Legal Theory & Practice Review
  • Abbr : LTPR
  • 2026, 14(2), pp.159~180
  • Publisher : The Korea Society for Legal Theory and Practice Inc.
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law
  • Received : April 1, 2026
  • Accepted : May 23, 2026
  • Published : May 31, 2026

Danbie Choi 1

1원광대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

This article examines the relationship between acknowledgment of debt after the completion of extinctive prescription and waiver of the benefit of prescription, focusing on the en banc decision of the Supreme Court of Korea rendered on July 24, 2025, 2023Da240299. The doctrine of extinctive prescription is intended to secure legal stability where a right has not been exercised for a prolonged period of time. However, Article 184 of the Korean Civil Act carries significant implications because, even after prescription has been completed, the debtor’s subsequent conduct may preclude the assertion of the defense of prescription. Previous Supreme Court precedents had adopted a creditor-oriented approach by presuming that acknowledgment of debt or partial repayment after the completion of prescription constituted a waiver of the benefit of prescription, absent special circumstances. Such precedents, however, were criticized for failing to sufficiently consider the debtor’s free will and the underlying purpose of the prescription system, while transforming payments or communications motivated by moral or social considerations into legally binding waivers of prescription defenses. The en banc decision analyzed in this article overturned the previous line of precedents and held that waiver of the benefit of prescription, as a form of waiver of rights, must be recognized only through a clear and definitive manifestation of intent. Accordingly, mere acknowledgment of debt or partial repayment can no longer be presumed to constitute a waiver of the completed prescription defense. This decision reaffirmed the principle that waiver of rights must be interpreted strictly, thereby strengthening the debtor’s procedural protection and restoring the essential functions of extinctive prescription, namely legal stability and the finality of disputes. Furthermore, from a comparative law perspective, the decision is consistent with the principles of “clarity” and “definitiveness” recognized in German and Japanese law concerning waiver of prescription benefits. This article analyzes the legal structure of the en banc decision and the reasons underlying the change in precedent, while proposing interpretive standards for evaluating a debtor’s conduct after the completion of prescription. In addition, it examines the implications of the decision in terms of balancing the interests of creditors and debtors, restoring the functional role of extinctive prescription, and strictly construing the doctrine of waiver of rights. Through this analysis, the article seeks to establish a coherent interpretive framework for assessing post-prescription conduct and to provide standards applicable to future cases involving waiver of the benefit of prescription.

Statistics

  • 8 Viewed
  • 0 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2024 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search