시효이익 포기 추정 법리의 폐기와법적 안정성의 재구성 -대법원 2025. 7. 24. 선고 2023다240299전원합의체 판결을 중심으로-

Through its en banc decision 2023Da240299 dated July 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Korea overturned the long-standing presumption doctrine that “when a debtor acknowledges a debt after the completion of the statute of limitations, it is presumed that the debtor knew of the completion of the statute of limitations and waived the benefit thereof.” This represents a significant change in the legal doctrine regarding waiver of prescription benefits, abandoning a principle that had been maintained for approximately 58 years since the Supreme Court Decision 66Da2173 in 1967. The previous presumption doctrine had been subject to continuous criticism for placing debtors in an unfavorable position not originally contemplated by law, by presuming both the debtor's awareness of the completion of the statute of limitations and the intent to waive prescription benefits based solely on the acknowledgment of debt after the completion of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, there were concerns that this doctrine could be abused by loan companies or collection agencies to pressure or induce debtors into waiving prescription benefits through partial repayment or other acts of debt acknowledgment after the completion of the statute of limitations. The majority opinion of the Supreme Court presented the following grounds for abolishing the presumption doctrine. First, since the completion of the statute of limitations is determined by various factors such as the prescription period, the starting point, and grounds for suspension or interruption, it is generally difficult to conclude that a debtor knew of the completion of the statute of limitations merely because the prescription period has elapsed. Moreover, it is exceptional for a debtor to make a declaration of intent to waive legal benefits arising from the completion of the statute of limitations and assume debt obligations while being aware of such benefits. Therefore, the presumption doctrine is not based on empirical rules or even contradicts them. Second, waiver of prescription benefits is clearly distinguished from debt acknowledgment in that it requires not merely an expression of awareness regarding the debt, but a declaration of intent with the effect of waiving the legally guaranteed prescription benefits. Third, the presumption doctrine does not conform to the general principle of Supreme Court precedents requiring strict and careful interpretation of declarations of intent to waive rights or benefits, as it readily presumes a declaration of intent to waive prescription benefits—which brings significant disadvantages to the debtor—based solely on the act of debt acknowledgment after the completion of the statute of limitations. Fourth, the presumption doctrine places debtors in an unfavorable position not originally contemplated by law by presuming awareness of the completion of the statute of limitations and a declaration of intent to waive prescription benefits based solely on debt acknowledgment after the completion of the statute of limitations, and imposing on debtors the burden of rebutting such presumption, and there are concerns that it could be abused for improper collection practices by loan companies or collection agencies. As a result of this change in precedent, creditors must comprehensively prove various circumstances existing in individual cases, such as the specific motives, circumstances, and voluntariness leading to partial repayment, the difference between the amount of partial repayment and the debt amount for which the statute of limitations has been completed, the degree to which the prescription period had elapsed at the time of partial repayment, the debtor's words and actions at the time of and before and after partial repayment, and the relationship between the parties and their transactional knowledge and experience, rather than merely proving the fact that there was an act of debt acknowledgment. Therefore, from the creditor's perspective, when receiving partial repayment from a debtor after the completion of the statute of limitations, it is necessary to clearly confirm whether the debtor was aware of the completion of the statute of limitations and had the intent to waive prescription benefits, and to document this in writing. This change in precedent can be positively evaluated in that it conforms to the purpose of the statute of limitations system of protecting debtors, harmonizes with the consistent attitude of Supreme Court precedents requiring strict interpretation of declarations of intent to waive rights or benefits, and can protect debtors from improper collection practices by loan companies or collection agencies. It also aligns with the precedents of the German Federal Court of Justice and the Japanese Supreme Court, conforming to international legislative and judicial trends. However, as this change in precedent has increased the burden of proof on creditors, a more careful approach is required in credit management practice. In the future, it will be necessary for lower courts to accumulate precedents regarding under what circumstances waiver of prescription benefits will be recognized according to specific cases. In the long term, it is hoped that a legislative review of the entire statute of limitations system will be conducted to establish a rational statute of limitations system that responds to changes in the socioeconomic environment.