손해배상(기)
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 reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following additional determinations, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that “The Daegu High Court received a revocation judgment (2010Nu1782) by the head of the Daegu High Court on April 6, 2012, and subsequently filed the instant lawsuit on April 2, 2015, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the said three years, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant was suspended.”
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 6, the above administrative litigation (Tgu High Court 2010Nu1782) is a revocation suit against the plaintiff on September 8, 2009, the head of Daegu Prison (Tgu High Court 2010Nu1782), which is a revocation suit against the plaintiff on the disposition of disciplinary punishment of ten days for the penalty of September 8, 2009, the warning disposition of October 16, 2009, the warning disposition of September 25, 2009, the 27th of that month, and the 28th of that month against each letter, and the remaining claims are dismissed. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21734, Sep. 8, 2009>
However, given that an administrative litigation seeking the cancellation or change of an illegal administrative disposition cannot be deemed to exercise a private right, it cannot be deemed that the cause for interrupting prescription against a private right is not only a ground for interrupting prescription (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Da32053, Mar. 31, 1992). The right claimed by the Plaintiff in this case is a claim for damages arising from a tort, such as a prison officer’s harsh treatment, during the process of using protective equipment from March 22, 2010 to the 29th day of that month, and is no relation with
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.