Open Decision Ledger · Civil obligations & remedies
A longer remaining limitation period gives no greater advantage of payment
Supreme Court, Feb. 26, 2026, 2025Da215255 (judgment)
Case name: 대여금[소멸시효가 나중에 완성되는 채무가 먼저 완성되는 채무보다 변제이익이 많다고 보아야 하는지가 문제 된 사건]
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a debtor owes several debts to the same creditor and, without designating the debt to which the payment is to be applied, pays an amount insufficient to discharge all of them, must the payment go first to the debt whose limitation period expires later, and does it interrupt the limitation of all the debts?
Holding
No to the first question and yes to the second. Article 477 of the Civil Act fixes the order of legal allocation of a payment by the advantage of payment and then by the due date, so on its wording the order in which due dates fall does not change the advantage of payment; the length of the limitation period still running does not make the content of the debt different, and a debtor's will to that effect cannot be recognised as a matter of ordinary experience. A payment of an amount insufficient to discharge all the debts, made without designating the debt to be applied, is, unless there are special circumstances, an acknowledgment of all the debts and interrupts their limitation. The Court added that where a first-instance judgment dismissing part of the claims is appealed only by the defendant, the whole of the claims goes indivisibly to the appellate court but the scope of review is limited to the parts the defendant challenged, and the rest becomes final with the pronouncement of the appellate judgment.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
따라서 소멸시효의 중단 등에 관한 고려 없이 단순히 변제 당시 남아있는 소멸시효기간이 길다고 하여 소멸시효가 나중에 완성된다고 단정할 수 없고, 소멸시효가 나중에 완성되는 채무가 먼저 완성되는 채무보다 변제이익이 많다고 보기 어렵다.
Unofficial English translation
Therefore, without any consideration of the interruption of extinctive prescription and the like, it cannot simply be asserted that extinctive prescription completes later merely because the period of extinctive prescription remaining at the time of performance is long, and it is difficult to regard a debt whose extinctive prescription completes later as yielding a greater benefit of performance than a debt that completes earlier.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 주위적 청구에 관한 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost on the primary claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
동일한 채권자와 채무자 사이에 다수의 채권이 존재하는 경우 채무자가 변제를 충당하여야 할 채무를 지정하지 않고 모든 채무를 변제하기에 부족한 금액을 변제한 때에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 변제는 모든 채무에 대한 승인으로서 소멸시효를 중단하는 효력을 가진다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a plurality of claims exist between the same creditor and debtor, and the debtor, without designating the debt to which the performance is to be applied, performs an amount insufficient to discharge all debts, unless there are special circumstances, such performance has the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription as an acknowledgment of all debts.
Factors
- 문언상 이행기 도래의 선후에 따라 변제이익이 달라지지 않음을 전제로 하고 있는 것이다
- 남아있는 소멸시효기간이 긴 채무가 언제나 채무자에게 유리하다고 볼 수 없고
- 그러한 당사자의 의사가 경험칙상 인정된다고 보기도 어렵다
- 채무자는 자신이 계약당사자로 있는 다수의 계약에 기초를 둔 채무들이 존재한다는 사실을 인식하고 있는 것이 통상적이므로
- 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 변제는 모든 채무에 대한 승인으로서 소멸시효를 중단하는 효력을 가진다
Unofficial English translation
• this proceeds on the premise that the benefit of performance does not vary according to the order in which the due dates for performance arrive on the wording of the provision
• a debt with a longer remaining period of extinctive prescription cannot always be regarded as advantageous to the debtor, and
• nor can such intention of the parties readily be recognized as a matter of experience
• as it is usual for a debtor to be aware of the fact that there exist debts based on a plurality of contracts to which the debtor is a party
• unless there are special circumstances, such performance has the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription as an acknowledgment of all debts
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2021. 9. 30. 선고 2021다239745 판결(공2021하, 2110)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2021Da239745 decided September 30, 2021 (Gong 2021 Ha, 2110)
Decisions referred to
[2] 대법원 2021. 9. 30. 선고 2021다239745 판결(공2021하, 2110) / [3] 대법원 2001. 4. 27. 선고 99다30312 판결(공2001상, 1229), 대법원 2004. 6. 10. 선고 2004다2151, 2168 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
What facts amount to the special circumstances in which a payment made without designating a debt is not an acknowledgment of all the debts?
The remand judgment of the Incheon District Court on the primary claim will show how the statutory order of allocation is applied to these payments once the interruption of limitation is recognised. A later decision defining the special circumstances, or an amendment to Article 477 of the Civil Act, would call for a fresh reading of this entry.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 5 (factors).
Axis 5 (Factors): Primary “문언상 이행기 도래의 선후에 따라 변제이익이 달라지지 않음을 전제로 하고 있는 것이다 / 남아있는 소멸시효기간이 긴 채무가 언제나 채무자에게 유리하다고 볼 수 없고 / 그러한 당사자의 의사가 경험칙상 인정된다고 보기도 어렵다 / 채무자는 자신이 계약당사자로 있는 다수의 계약에 기초를 둔 채무들이 존재한다는 사실을 인식하고 있는 것이 통상적이므로 / 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 변제는 모든 채무에 대한 승인으로서 소멸시효를 중단하는 효력을 가진다” vs Independent “소멸시효의 중단, 정지 등 특별한 사정 / 소멸시효가 중단되거나 시효의 이익을 포기하는 등 사후적 사정 / 채무자가 변제를 충당하여야 할 채무를 지정하지 않고 / 모든 채무를 변제하기에 부족한 금액 / 피고가 불복 신청한 한도”
The primary reading relies on the wording of Article 477, the impossibility of inferring the debtor's intent from experience, and the debtor's awareness of multiple contracts, while the independent reading lists generic items such as post-hoc events and the undesignated payment, so the central grounds do not overlap enough.
소멸시효의 중단, 정지 등 특별한 사정Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Incheon District Court, in its judgment of 9 July 2025 (2024Na74413), held that the sums at rows 1 to 9 of Table 2 of its judgment were payments the defendant had made by designating a debt, so that they were applied to those debts. For the remaining payments, on which no designation was found, it applied Article 477 of the Civil Act and reasoned that the debt whose limitation period expires later has the greater advantage of payment, so the payment was applied first to the debt most recently formed, with the result that the limitation of the plaintiff's loan claim was not interrupted. It also dismissed part of the plaintiff's primary claim, and dismissed the subsidiary claim for restoration upon rescission on the ground that the defendant's non-performance was not proved.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the reading of Article 477 of the Civil Act was wrong, since the statutory order presupposes no difference in the advantage of payment by the order in which due dates fall, and a longer remaining limitation period is not always favourable to the debtor. Following Supreme Court Decision 2021Da239745, it held that a payment made without designating a debt, in an amount insufficient to discharge all the debts, was, absent special circumstances, an acknowledgment of all the debts outstanding at the time and interrupted their limitation; it found no special circumstances here, since the defendant had not disputed the existence or scope of the loan debts while paying a designated portion. It found no error in the findings on the designated payments and none in the dismissal of the subsidiary claim, reversed only the portion of the primary claim on which the plaintiff lost, and remanded that portion to the Incheon District Court, dismissing the rest of the appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Debts of the same debtor whose limitation periods run for different lengths, so that which expires later cannot be derived from the order of due dates alone.
- A payment made at the time the debtor designated which debt it was to be applied to, since Article 477 of the Civil Act governs only a payment made without designation.
- Special circumstances in which the debtor disputed the existence or scope of the debts while paying a designated portion of them.
Record verification notes
Sort the payments into those the debtor designated and those made without designation, since Article 477 of the Civil Act governs only the latter and the Court left the lower court's designation findings undisturbed. Then confirm that all the debts carry the same limitation period, because the Court's reasoning on the advantage of payment was given for that case. Finally, check which claims the plaintiff lost and whether only the defendant appealed, since the parts the plaintiff did not challenge became final when the appellate judgment was pronounced.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 변제 당시 남아있는 소멸시효기간이 길다고 하여 소멸시효가 나중에 완성된다고 단정하거나, 소멸시효가 나중에 완성되는 채무가 먼저 완성되는 채무보다 변제이익이 많다고 볼 수 있는지 여부(소극) [2] 동일한 채권자에게 다수의 채무를 부담하는 채무자가 변제에 충당할 채무를 지정하지 아니한 채 모든 채무를 변제하기에 부족한 금액을 변제한 경우, 모든 채무에 대한 승인으로서 소멸시효 중단의 효력이 있는지 여부(원칙적 적극) [3] 원고의 청구 중 일부를 기각하는 제1심판결에 대하여 피고만 항소한 경우, 항소심의 심판범위 및 이때 항소심의 심판대상이 되지 아니한 부분은 항소심판결 선고와 동시에 확정되어 소송이 종료되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether it can be asserted that extinctive prescription completes later merely because the period of extinctive prescription remaining at the time of performance is long, and whether a debt whose extinctive prescription completes later can be regarded as yielding a greater benefit of performance than a debt that completes earlier (negative) [2] Where a debtor owing a plurality of debts to the same creditor performs an amount insufficient to discharge all debts without designating the debt to which the performance is to be applied, whether such performance has the effect of interrupting extinctive prescription as an acknowledgment of all debts (affirmative in principle) [3] Where only the defendant appeals from a judgment of the court of first instance dismissing a part of the plaintiff's claim, the scope of adjudication by the appellate court, and whether the portion not subject to adjudication by the appellate court becomes final and conclusive and the lawsuit is terminated upon the pronouncement of the appellate judgment (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자가 부담하는 수 개의 채무의 소멸시효기간이 모두 동일한 경우에는 소멸시효의 중단, 정지 등 특별한 사정이 없는 한 이행기가 먼저 도래하는 채무가 소멸시효도 먼저 완성된다. 그런데 민법 제477조는 제2호에서 변제이익을, 제3호에서 이행기를 기준으로 법정변제충당의 순서를 정한다고 규정하고 있는바, 문언상 이행기 도래의 선후에 따라 변제이익이 달라지지 않음을 전제로 하고 있는 것이다. 또한 소멸시효가 완성되기 전에 남아있는 소멸시효기간의 장단에 따라 채무의 내용에 차이가 있다고 보기 어렵고, 소멸시효가 중단되거나 시효의 이익을 포기하는 등 사후적 사정에 따라 소멸시효의 완성 여부 및 그 효력이 달라질 수 있으므로, 남아있는 소멸시효기간이 긴 채무가 언제나 채무자에게 유리하다고 볼 수 없고, 그러한 당사자의 의사가 경험칙상 인정된다고 보기도 어렵다. 따라서 소멸시효의 중단 등에 관한 고려 없이 단순히 변제 당시 남아있는 소멸시효기간이 길다고 하여 소멸시효가 나중에 완성된다고 단정할 수 없고, 소멸시효가 나중에 완성되는 채무가 먼저 완성되는 채무보다 변제이익이 많다고 보기 어렵다. [2] 동일한 채권자와 채무자 사이에 다수의 채권이 존재하는 경우 채무자가 변제를 충당하여야 할 채무를 지정하지 않고 모든 채무를 변제하기에 부족한 금액을 변제한 때에는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 그 변제는 모든 채무에 대한 승인으로서 소멸시효를 중단하는 효력을 가진다. 채무자는 자신이 계약당사자로 있는 다수의 계약에 기초를 둔 채무들이 존재한다는 사실을 인식하고 있는 것이 통상적이므로, 변제 시에 충당할 채무를 지정하지 않고 변제를 하였으면 특별한 사정이 없는 한 다수의 채무 전부에 대하여 그 존재를 알고 있다는 것을 표시했다고 볼 수 있기 때문이다. [3] 원고의 청구 중 일부를 기각하는 제1심판결에 대하여 피고만 항소를 하였더라도 제1심판결의 심판대상이었던 청구 전부가 불가분적으로 항소심에 이심되나, 항소심의 심판범위는 이심된 부분 가운데 피고가 불복 신청한 한도로 제한되고, 나머지 부분은 원고가 불복한 바가 없어 항소심의 심판대상이 되지 아니하므로, 그 부분에 대해서는 항소심판결의 선고와 동시에 확정되어 소송이 종료된다.
Order
원심판결 중 주위적 청구에 관한 원고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 인천지방법원에 환송한다. 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below in which the plaintiff lost on the primary claim is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court. The remainder of the final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민법 제477조 / [2] 민법 제168조 제3호 / [3] 민사소송법 제415조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger