일부청구와 시효 중단에 관한 대법원 판결의 체계적 이해 - 대법원 2020. 2. 6. 선고 2019다22723 판결, 대법원 2020. 8. 20. 선고 2019다14110, 14127, 14134, 14141 판결, 대법원 2021. 6. 10. 선고 2018다44114 판결을 비교·분석하여 -

A civil suit, splitting of claims, is often filed, because of difficulties in proving or reduction of litigation costs. There have been lots of discussions about interruption of prescription by the split claim, but few which consider various progress of legal proceeding. The Supreme Court of South Korea, continued rendering three important decisions[2019Da223723 decided February 6, 2020; 2019Da14110, 14127, 14134, 14141 decided August 20, 2020; 2018Da44114 decided June 10, 2021], if prescription is interrupted by explicit split claim which has initially expressed that the amount of claim would be expanded throughout legal proceeding. These three cases have different legal proceeding progress, such as if the amount of claim has been expanded or not, or if the plaintiff expressed that he or she would not expand the amount. The Supreme Court of South Korea judge these split claims differently, regarding one as judicial demand provisioned in 170-1 of Civil Code of South Korea, another as extra-judicial demand provisioned in 174 of Civil Code of South Korea, both of which can interrupt the prescription of the whole claim, but the effects of interruption are quite different, and the other as none of them. These three decisions have a great significance, as they reflect specific progress of legal proceeding, in which split claim is lodged. The applicable scope of demand would be established by analyzing these three cases.