Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Ratification of an unauthorised filing and the six-month re-filing rule
Supreme Court, Aug. 12, 2026, 2026Da202857 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person without representative authority filed an action on behalf of a corporation and the lawful representative ratified it during the proceedings, is the limitation interrupted as of the time of that original filing, so that a withdrawal of the action followed by a further claim in court within six months still interrupts the limitation?
Holding
Yes. The Supreme Court held that a filing made without representative authority takes retroactive effect once the lawful representative ratifies it during the proceedings, so the interruption of the statute of limitations operates from the time of that filing. Even after the action is withdrawn, a further claim brought within six months interrupts the limitation by virtue of the first claim in court.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
대표권 없는 자가 법인을 대표하여 소를 제기한 경우 그 소송계속 중에 적법한 대표자가 이를 추인하면 그 소 제기는 소급하여 효력을 가진다(민사소송법 제64조, 제60조 참조). 따라서 시효중단의 효력은 소 제기 시에 발생하고(민사소송법 제265조 참조), 그 후 그 소를 취하하였다고 하더라도 그로부터 6개월 내에 재판상의 청구를 한 때에는 시효는 최초의 재판상 청구로 인하여 중단된다(민법 제170조 참조).
Unofficial English translation
Where a person without representative authority files an action on behalf of a corporation, if the lawful representative ratifies it while the action is pending, the filing of the action takes effect retroactively (see Articles 64 and 60 of the Civil Procedure Act). Accordingly, the effect of interruption of prescription arises at the time of the filing of the action (see Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act), and even if that action is thereafter withdrawn, where a judicial claim is filed within 6 months therefrom, the prescription is interrupted by the first judicial claim (see Article 170 of the Civil Act).
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
따라서 시효중단의 효력은 소 제기 시에 발생하고(민사소송법 제265조 참조), 그 후 그 소를 취하하였다고 하더라도 그로부터 6개월 내에 재판상의 청구를 한 때에는 시효는 최초의 재판상 청구로 인하여 중단된다(민법 제170조 참조).
Unofficial English translation
Accordingly, the effect of interruption of prescription arises at the time of the filing of the action (see Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act), and even if that action is thereafter withdrawn, where a judicial claim is filed within 6 months therefrom, the prescription is interrupted by the first judicial claim (see Article 170 of the Civil Act).
Factors
- 그 소송계속 중에 적법한 대표자가 이를 추인하면 그 소 제기는 소급하여 효력을 가진다
- 시효중단의 효력은 소 제기 시에 발생하고
- 그로부터 6개월 내에 재판상의 청구를 한 때에는 시효는 최초의 재판상 청구로 인하여 중단된다
Unofficial English translation
• if the lawful representative ratifies it while the action is pending, the filing of the action takes effect retroactively
• the effect of interruption of prescription arises at the time of the filing of the action, and
• where a judicial claim is filed within 6 months therefrom, the prescription is interrupted by the first judicial claim
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 1992. 9. 8. 선고 92다18184 판결(공1992, 2843)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 92Da18184 decided September 8, 1992 (Gong 1992, 2843)
Decisions referred to
대법원 1992. 9. 8. 선고 92다18184 판결(공1992, 2843)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Does the filing still take retroactive effect, and interrupt the limitation from its own date, if the lawful representative ratifies only after the prior action has been withdrawn?
A later decision holding that ratification after withdrawal does not restore the original filing would unsettle this entry. So would an amendment to Article 170 of the Civil Act or Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act, or a record showing that the second action was not identical in content to the first.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 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 all 8 axes.
Raw 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 Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 26 February 2026 (2024Na24677), held that the plaintiffs' lawful representative had ratified the filing of the prior action and that the plaintiffs brought the present action, identical in content, within six months of withdrawing the prior one, so that the limitation on the damages claims described in the judgment was interrupted at the time of the prior filing.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. It held that the court below had not misapplied the law on the interruption of limitation, and that the second ground of appeal merely challenged the selection of evidence and findings of fact, which lie within the appellate court's exclusive authority, without any breach of the rules of evidence. As the defendants had appealed the whole judgment without stating specific grounds for the remainder, all appeals were dismissed unanimously.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the lawful representative never ratified the filing during the proceedings, so that the filing never takes retroactive effect.
- A further claim in court brought more than six months after the withdrawal of the prior action, so that the statutory saving does not apply.
- A second action that is not identical in content to the withdrawn action, since the court below rested on the two claims being identical.
Record verification notes
Set out the two actions side by side with their filing and withdrawal dates, and fix the date of the ratification, since the Court relied on ratification during the proceedings of the first action. Then compare the content of the two claims, because the court below rested on the second action being identical in content. Finally, check that each ground of appeal was actually stated, as the Court dismissed the remainder for want of specific reasons.
From the official text
Points at issue
대표권 없는 자가 법인을 대표하여 소를 제기하였으나 소송계속 중에 적법한 대표자가 이를 추인한 경우, 시효중단의 효력이 발생하는 시점(=소 제기 시) 및 그 후 소를 취하하고 그로부터 6개월 내에 재판상의 청구를 한 경우, 시효는 최초의 재판상 청구로 인하여 중단되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where a person without representative authority files an action on behalf of a corporation and the lawful representative ratifies it while the action is pending, the effect of interruption of prescription arises at the time of the filing of the action (= the time the action was filed), and where the action is thereafter withdrawn and a judicial claim is filed within 6 months therefrom, the prescription is interrupted by the first judicial claim (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
대표권 없는 자가 법인을 대표하여 소를 제기한 경우 그 소송계속 중에 적법한 대표자가 이를 추인하면 그 소 제기는 소급하여 효력을 가진다(민사소송법 제64조, 제60조 참조). 따라서 시효중단의 효력은 소 제기 시에 발생하고(민사소송법 제265조 참조), 그 후 그 소를 취하하였다고 하더라도 그로부터 6개월 내에 재판상의 청구를 한 때에는 시효는 최초의 재판상 청구로 인하여 중단된다(민법 제170조 참조).
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용은 피고들이 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
Provisions referred to
민사소송법 제60조, 제64조, 제265조, 민법 제168조 제1호, 제170조
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