Costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

1. As to the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s long-term extinctive prescription defense, and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim as to comparative negligence, on January 16, 2009, when five years elapsed retroactively from January 17, 2014, which was the date of the instant lawsuit.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the legal principles as to the starting point of

2. In full view of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, determined that a series of administrative dispositions that the Defendant against the Plaintiff constituted a tort by losing objective legitimacy, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the illegality of the above disposition, damages, and the perpetrator that the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive on January 27, 201 in a lawsuit seeking revocation of the return disposition of this case, and thus, ordered the Plaintiff to pay damages on January 17, 2014, which was within three years thereafter, by filing the instant lawsuit on January 17,

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding liability for damages, including the starting point of short-term extinctive prescription and the inclusion of fixed costs in damages.

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