구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “Plaintiffs” in Section 12 of Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under Section 5 of Section 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance to “the defendant's dismissal, and the addition to the plaintiff’s assertion added in the court of first instance,” and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff received the diagnosis of the latter disability on February 7, 2014, which was after the treatment is completed by C, and that the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant should be calculated on February 7, 2014 as the starting point for calculating the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant as the starting point.
The right to claim compensation for damages due to an illegal act is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised within three years from the date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage or of the identity of the tortfeasor. Here, it is clear that the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the occurrence of the damage and that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor's illegal act, and it is not necessary to specifically know the degree or amount
Therefore, in ordinary cases, the victim of the injury should be deemed to have known of the damage when he suffered the injury. However, due to the subsequent legacy, there was a new damage that could not have been predicted at all at the time of tort.
In the event of expansion of damage outside the expected, it should be seen that the new or expanded damage occurred or has been known when such cause is found.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da2011, Apr. 14, 1992). However, due to legacy to C, there was a new loss that could not have been predicted at the time of the instant accident.
Since there is no evidence to prove that the damage has been increased from an unexpected or unexpected point of view, the plaintiff's above assertion.