손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
A. The reasoning for the judgment of the court with respect to this case is to add “No. 4-1 and No. 2” to “the purport of the entire pleadings” in Part 7, No. 5, and No. 8, for the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, prior to “the purport of the entire pleadings”, and No. 9-2, not more than
B. (2) The part of subsection (b) is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, given that the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the following, in addition to the dismissal as
B. Defendant B asserts that, on November 28, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants as a crime of forging private documents, etc., and that the summary order against Defendant C became final and conclusive on May 11, 2007, the Plaintiff should have known of damages and the perpetrator caused by the previous tort. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages due to the Plaintiff’s tort has expired the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act.
In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, while continuing the auction procedure of this case, submitted a claim objection objection, withdrawal of the lawsuit and withdrawal of the application for the suspension of compulsory execution on November 28, 2006, with the knowledge that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the suspension of compulsory execution under his name during the period of the auction procedure of this case, and submitted a report on the suspension of compulsory execution to the court of auction. On December 7, 2006, Defendant C submitted an application for the continuation of compulsory execution against the second compulsory execution application under his name on December 1, 2006, and thereafter filed a complaint against the Defendants with the investigative agency on the grounds of the crime of forging private documents (the time is stated to be around March 207). In light of the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, at least at the time when the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants, became aware of the damage caused by an unlawful act such as forging private documents and the identity of the perpetrator.
Therefore, from that point of time, the plaintiff's claim for damages due to tort against the defendants is extinctive prescription.