소멸시효의 기산점에 관한 고찰 -2013년 민법개정안을 반영하여-

To prevent the extinctive prescription system, which may be considered to realize legal stability, from infringing substantive justice, Supreme Court slows down the starting point of extinctive prescription. Also Supreme Court regards that Exercising the right of defense upon extinctive prescription of a debtor is governed by the principle of good faith and the principle of prohibition of abuse of rights. Thus, in unique circumstances where the debtor prevents or causes noticeable inconvenience either to the creditor’s exercise of rights prior to completion of an extinctive prescription; or acts as though such measures are unnecessary; there were objective obstacles preventing the creditor from exercising his/her rights; the debtor acts as though he/she will not invoke the prescription even after the extinctive prescriptive period is completed, and also misleads the creditor into believing so; there is compelling necessity to protect the creditor, and refusal to fulfill obligation is noticeably unjustified or unfair as another creditor under the same circumstances received payment; the debtor is not allowed to state that the extinctive prescription is completed, as alleged by the grounds for appeal. However, ultimately, this is a problem that needs to be addressed through revision rather than being left to interpretation. Considering the recent international trends of the statute of law and the Japanese amendment on the starting-point of extinctive prescription, it is also reasonable for us to adopt a structure to unify the period of prescription as the presumption of short-term presupposition and to prevent the extension of the prescription through indefinite term will be.