[2] The meaning of "the day when he became aware of the damage" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Code

1. According to the records, Plaintiff Nonghyup has a special compensation provision concerning the employees' liability for compensation, and in principle, the employee's liability for compensation occurs only when he causes property damage to the Plaintiff by occupational or gross negligence, and in the case of a transitional period, the scope of other liability for compensation, reduction of the amount of liability, extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation, and other procedures for compensation. The purport of the above provision is to impose the employees' liability for compensation only in exceptional cases where the employee's intention or gross negligence exists in order to have the employees faithfully perform his duties beyond the burden of liability due to negligence, and even in cases where the liability for compensation is recognized, the liability should be mitigated or the prescription period should be exempted if the employee's liability is reduced, and the employee's liability for compensation should only be limited to the case where the employee's internal liability is claimed with the court, and the requirements and scope of the above compensation provision should only be limited to the case where the employee's liability is claimed with the court, and the employee's liability for compensation shall not be deemed to have been sentenced to 20184.29.28.24.

In the same purport, the court below determined that the reduced prescription period should be applied not only to the claim for compensation, but also to the claim for damages due to non-performance of civil liability, if the plaintiff Nonghyup AFF set the extinctive prescription period as more reduced or reduced than to the general civil civil code in the rules of disciplinary action and work process. Thus, the claim for damages against the defendant of the plaintiff NonghyupC shall be terminated at the lapse of three years from the date of accident dismissal under Article 53 (1) of the Rules of Disciplinary Action, i.e., the date of accident occurrence under Article 53 (1) of the Rules of Disciplinary Action. In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it shall not be deemed that there was an error

2. A claim for damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription, unless it is exercised within three years from the date on which the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage and of the identity of the perpetrator under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act. Here, a claim for damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription, and it is not necessary to know the occurrence of the damage and to know the degree or amount of the damage in detail (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da42797, Sept. 14, 2001, etc.

The above legal principle also applies to the above short-term prescription as stipulated in the disciplinary action rules, and as duly established by the court below, the plaintiff Nonghyup knew or could have known that the damage had already occurred due to the defendant's improper business operations around August 23, 2001, the disciplinary action date against the defendant. Therefore, the extinctive prescription of the damage claim is effective from this point. Accordingly, it is proper that the court below judged that the plaintiff Nonghyup had contracted the extinctive prescription, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the extinctive prescription as alleged by the plaintiff.

3. In light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim for damages has not been completed due to the interpretation of Article 9 (3) of the Rules on the Handling of Disciplinary Action against the plaintiff Nonghyup, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the extinctive prescription

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)