2. The height shall be from the fourth to the fifth fourth to the fourth, of the judgment of the first instance, to the following:

“1) Determination as to the claim for extinctive prescription) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant gave K notice of the occurrence of damages caused by the Defendant’s tort and caused K to proceed with the criminal procedure against the Defendant. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that at least, “K, on October 18, 2010, submitted a written complaint to the Defendant to an investigative agency, or on January 14, 201, submitted a written complaint to the Defendant.” As such, the Plaintiff’s damage claim was filed three years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the statute of limitations expired. (B) As such, the Plaintiff’s damage claim for the instant lawsuit was extinguished, the “date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which serves as the starting point for calculating the short-term extinctive prescription period for the claim for damages due to the tort, means the time when the victim, etc. actually and specifically recognized the elements of the tort, such as the occurrence of damages, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the damage.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da54686 Decided November 10, 201). (2) In the instant case, the fact that K, a real estate broker, introduced G and C to the Plaintiff is as seen earlier.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 20, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 13, K is a sale issue on October 18, 201.