소멸시효 제도에 있어 채무자의 ‘채무승인’의 의미- 대법원 2025. 7. 24. 선고 2023다240299 전원합의체 판결을 중심으로 -

Under the extinctive prescription system, the long-standing ‘doctrine presuming a waiver of benefit of prescription’ held that when a debtor acknowledged a debt after the completion of the prescriptive period, it was presumed that the debtor knew of the completion and had waived the benefit arising from it. However, in the Supreme Court en banc decision of July 24, 2025, Case No. 2023Da240299, the Court abolished this doctrine for the following reasons. First, in ordinary commercial relationships, it is contrary to common experience and rather exceptional for a debtor to acknowledge a debt while being aware that the prescriptive period has already expired. Second, unlike an acknowledgment of debt, which is merely a declaration of knowledge, the waiver of the benefit of prescription requires an expression of intent to forgo the legal advantage arising from the completion of the prescriptive period, and is therefore fundamentally different in nature. Third, any expression of intent that brings about a substantial disadvantage to the holder of a right or benefit, such as giving up a legal right or advantage, should be interpreted strictly. Fourth, the doctrine presuming a waiver of benefit of prescription placed debtors in an unfairly disadvantageous position not contemplated by law, and in practice, courts rarely allowed the presumption to be rebutted, thereby deepening the debtor’s structural inferiority. Fifth, from a policy perspective, the doctrine had been exploited by lenders and collection agencies to induce partial payments from debtors, leading to serious social abuses. The doctrine presuming a waiver of the benefit of prescription is a two-tier presumption: from the fact that the debtor acknowledged the debt after the completion of prescription, it first presumes that the debtor was aware of the expiration of the prescriptive period (the first presumption), and on the basis of that, it further presumes that the debtor expressed an intention to waive the benefit arising from the completion of prescription (the second presumption). The first presumption concerns the experiential rule regarding acknowledgment of debt. While it may be accepted as a matter of experience that the completion of prescription provides the debtor with the possibility of being released from the obligation, there is no sufficient basis to automatically infer, from the mere fact of acknowledgment, that the debtor was aware of the completion of prescription. Therefore, it is difficult to justify such an inference by relying on common experience. The second presumption relates to distinguishing an acknowledgment of debt from a waiver of the benefit of prescription. An acknowledgment of debt is merely a communicative act expressing awareness, whereas a waiver of the benefit of prescription is a juridical act that requires a intention to produce legal effects. Given that the prescription system serves to safeguard legal stability, a debtor’s intent to relinquish such benefit should not be readily inferred by presumption. Instead, the creditor bears the burden of proving that the debtor expressly intended to waive the benefit of prescription. Furthermore, since any expression indicating the waiver of a right or benefit must be interpreted with strict scrutiny, a debtor’s intention to relinquish the benefit of prescription should be assessed carefully in light of the debtor’s awareness, the surrounding circumstances, and the relationship with the creditor. The presumption of such waiver should not be applied in a uniform or automatic manner but must be determined individually based on the specific facts of each case. The Supreme Court’s ruling discarded the doctrine presuming a waiver of the benefit of prescription and returned to the fundamental principle that the creditor must provide concrete proof that the debtor’s conduct after the completion of the prescriptive period went beyond a mere acknowledgment of debt and included an intention to relinquish the benefit of prescription. Through this shift, the Court has corrected the procedural imbalance that had long placed debtors at a disadvantage, while ensuring fairness and practical reasonableness in individual cases. In doing so, the decision achieves a balance between legal stability, which constitutes the very foundation of the prescription system, and substantive justice in the resolution of specific disputes.