채무자가 시효완성 후 채무를 승인한 경우 시효완성 사실을 알고 그 이익을 포기한 것으로 추정되는지 여부

Previous precedents have determined that where a debtor has acknowledged a debt after the completion of prescription, it is presumed that the debtor has waived the benefit of prescription, with knowledge of the completion of prescription. The lower court in charge of the subject case, based on the presumptive legal doctrine adopted by previous precedents, also held that the Plaintiff waived the benefit of the completion of extinctive prescription with respect to the interest liabilities by making partial repayments on the loans even though the extinctive prescription on the loans had expired. However, the subject case held that the presumptive legal doctrine adopted by previous precedents should be abolished, and whether a debtor intended to waive the benefit of prescription, with knowledge of the completion of extinctive prescription, should be determined objectively and reasonably in comprehensive consideration of various circumstances that exist in each individual case. This is based on the fact that the presumptive legal doctrine ① is either not supported by the empirical rules or may, in fact, contradict them; ② adopts a framework that, without sufficiently considering this fundamental difference between an acknowledgment of debt and a waiver of the benefit of prescription, presumes an expression of intent to waive the benefit of prescription directly from the mere existence of an acknowledgment of debt and thus is unreasonable; ③ is inconsistent with the general principles established by the Supreme Court, which require the strict and careful interpretation of expressions of intent to relinquish rights or benefits; and ④ can lead to unjust outcomes by imposing on the debtor the burden of rebutting presumption, thereby placing the debtor in a disadvantageous position not originally anticipated by law. The subject case is significant in that it rectified the cognitive bias that had been unfavorable to the debtor by clarifying that the presumptive legal doctrine, which cannot be seen to be consistent with the empirical rules, should be abolished, and whether a debtor intended to waive the benefit of prescription, with knowledge of the completion of extinctive prescription, should be determined specifically in accordance with the interpretation of intent. As a result, the previous cases, in which the waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription was easily recognized according to the presumptive legal doctrine, may not also be recognized as a waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription through an individual interpretation of intent, which may affect the conclusion of specific cases. In future practice, the interpretation of whether the benefit of extinctive prescription is waived through an acknowledgment of debt should be made in a detailed and individualized manner in comprehensive consideration of the following factors: the length of the prescription period; the degree to which the prescription period has passed; the relationship between the parties; the parties’ transaction experience or legal knowledge; the specific motivation and circumstances surrounding the acknowledgment of debt and its voluntariness; the timing of the acknowledgment and words and actions before and after it; the amount of partial repayment and the remaining balance in cases where partial repayment is in question; and the presence or absence of any grounds for interruption or suspension of extinctive prescription.