일부 추심금 청구의 시효중단의 효력 범위 -대법원 2022. 5. 26. 선고 2020다206625 판결과 관련하여-

In a case where multiple collection creditors have apportioned their claims according to their respective ratios of the total claim amount and each has individually claimed only a partial amount for collection, the Supreme Court ruled in Decision 2020da206625 on May 26, 2022 (hereinafter ‘this Decision’), that the remaining portions of each claim have the effect of continuous demand, and if the actions prescribed under Article 174 of the Civil Act are taken within six months after the conclusion of the lawsuit, the statute of limitations for the remaining portions will also be interrupted, treating their claims in the same manner as partial claims made with the intention of expanding the scope of the claim. Although there were the circumstances of the case in the Decision where the garnished claims were unclear, it is problematic to generalize and rule as stated above. In the absence of special circumstances, if the creditor seeking collection does not express an intention to expand the scope of the claim and makes a claim for only part of the collection amount, it should be considered that the subject matter of the lawsuit is explicitly limited to that part. According to the logic of the Decision, a partial claim for collection essentially implies that continuous demand can always be recognized for the remaining amount. However, it is questionable whether this aligns logically with the Supreme Court’s previous rulings on partial claims. Moreover, if the collection lawsuit of another creditor seeking collection does not conclude simultaneously and ends six months later than the lawsuit of the creditor who intends to file an additional collection lawsuit, it would be difficult to file the collection lawsuit before the expiration of the statute of limitations, even with the extension of the objective scope of the effect of interruption of the statute of limitations. Rather, to recognize the legal nature of the collection lawsuit as a statutory litigation mandate and to allow actions under Article 170, Paragraph 2 of the Civil Act to be taken within six months after the conclusion of the lawsuits by other collection creditors would be more advantageous for their protection. Therefore, in the absence of special circumstances, it would be logically reasonable to recognize the effect of the interruption of the statute of limitations only for the portion of the claim that is the subject matter of the lawsuit for each partial collection claim by multiple collection creditors, and to recognize the effect of the interruption of the statute of limitations for the remaining portions through the collection claims filed by other collection creditors.