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. The reasoning of the court of the first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following addition.
2. The addition;
A. The following is added between the first instance judgment Nos. 5, 11 and 12:
Even if the withdrawal of the building report by Defendant B constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit three years after the date on which the Plaintiff became aware that the said building report was withdrawn, and the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant B was extinguished by prescription.
B. The following is added between the 6th and 15th of the judgment of the first instance.
“Although Defendant B’s withdrawal of the building report by Defendant B, as alleged by the Plaintiff, constitutes a tort against the Plaintiff, Defendant B submitted the revocation of the building report on June 28, 2003 to the Plaintiff.
7.2. The fact that the building report was revoked on October 15, 2003, and the plaintiff notified the competent authority that it is subject to the cancellation of the building report for the above reasons, and that the building report was revoked on the same day by submitting a petition for cancellation of the building report on October 15, 2003, as seen earlier, the plaintiff was aware that at least the defendant B submitted the cancellation of the building report at least at least at the time of October 15, 2003, and it is apparent that the lawsuit in this case was filed on October 5, 201, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant B had already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.
In this regard, the plaintiff alleged that the cancellation of the building report by the defendant B was not known as constituting a tort, and that the claim for damages against the defendant B was not extinguished by prescription, since he became aware of it at the latest while filing the lawsuit in this case against the defendant B. However, it can be recognized.