Article 131 of the Civil Code stipulates that“The Statute of limitations is tolled due to a timely action”. The stipulation means that the prescription shall be suspended through exercising one’s right by means of filing a suit. (referring to Supreme Court decision No. 1957-Tai-Shang-1173) Therefore, the following two treatments both refer to the event where the claimants file suits to exercise their rights: “a prescription will be suspended by bringing an action” and “a prescription suspended by bringing an action”, sentences stipulated respectively in Article 129 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 and Article 137 Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code. Also in Article 129 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, the sentence “a demand for the satisfaction of the claim” is defined as the event where the creditor expresses the intent of exercising the claim to the debtor. (referring to Supreme Court decision No. 2004-Tai-Shang-2329) The term “acknowledgement” in pursuant to Article 129 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 2 of the Civil Code is defined as the concept notification that the debtor admits the existence of the creditor’s claim and expresses to the creditor. (referring to Supreme Court decision No. 1967-Tai-Shang-1219) In Article 129 Paragraph 2 of the Civil Code , the following sentences are defined as the event where the claimants have the intent of exercising the claim: “application for issuance of an order for payment in accordance with a hortatory procedure”, “application for conciliation or submission to arbitration”, “representation of a compromise on credit or a claim in a bankruptcy process”, “notice of the pending action”, “institution of proceedings in execution or application for compulsory execution”. Accordingly, the aforementioned Article shall be interpreted that the prescription be interrupted in the previous suit only if the context of the complaint equaled that the claimant exercises the right of the obligatory claim to the opposite party, as well as the relation between the complaint in the previous suit and post suit is identical. Instead, the prescription will not be interrupted if the basis of claims are not identical in both suits. In this case, the plaintiff has brought the administrative actions for declaration, alleging that the defendant had infringed his right of monopoly and profits of the musical work, claiming that the defendant has no license regarding reproduction. In other words, the plaintiff brought the action for negative declaration, requesting the court to affirm that the defendant did not acquire the right of reproduction of the musical work in the Karaoke machine without licensing by the plaintiff. Consequently, the plaintiff did not exercise the right of the obligatory claim to the defendant in the previous suit, and the damage claim is based on the infringement of the copyright in this suit. That is, the claims in these two cases are not the same. The claim in the previous action does not qualify as “bringing an action” in pursuant to Article 129 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, and the prescription shall not be suspended.

Extinctive Prescription, Prescription Interrupted