손해배상
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the “the date of the pronouncement of this judgment” in Part 7 of Part 3 of the judgment of this case is “the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance,” and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as follows, and therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with
2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the period of prescription for the claim for damages caused by a tort was three years when filing the instant lawsuit. As such, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the three-year statute of prescription was not excessive as to the claim for damages arising from the dismissal of the Plaintiff around 2013.
On the other hand, the short-term extinctive prescription of Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which applies to the claim for damages due to tort, runs from the date when the plaintiff became aware of the damage and the perpetrator. In light of the contents of the defendant's tort claimed by the plaintiff, it seems that the plaintiff could have known the damage and the perpetrator at the time of the occurrence of the tort. This part of the claim for damages expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff did not know of the system of prescription and
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.