Supreme Court Decision 2026Da202857, August 12, 2026 [Damages (Other)]

【Holding】

Where a person without the power of representation filed a suit on behalf of a corporation but the lawful representative ratified it while the suit was pending, the time at which the effect of interruption of prescription arises (= the time of filing the suit), and whether, where the suit is thereafter withdrawn and a judicial claim is made within six months therefrom, the prescription is interrupted by the original judicial claim (affirmative)

【Summary of Decision】

Where a person without the power of representation has filed a suit on behalf of a corporation, if the lawful representative ratifies it while the suit is pending, the filing of the suit takes effect retroactively (see Articles 64 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, the effect of interruption of prescription arises at the time of filing the suit (see Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act), and even if the suit is thereafter withdrawn, where a judicial claim is made within six months therefrom, the prescription is interrupted by the original judicial claim (see Article 170 of the Civil Act).

【Referenced Statutes】

Articles 60, 64, and 265 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 168 subparag. 1 and 170 of the Civil Act

【Referenced Precedents】

Supreme Court Decision 92Da18184, September 8, 1992 (Gong1992, 2843)

(Source: Supreme Court Decision 2026Da202857, August 12, 2026 | Judicial Information Disclosure Portal, Precedents)

2026. 10. 14. · By Attorney Dongwoo Shin