1. A;

2. B

3. C.

Korea

1. As to the Defendant’s first ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is justifiable for the court below to recognize the defendant's liability for damages on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation

2. As to the Plaintiffs’ grounds of incidental appeal and the amount of consolation money for emotional distress suffered by tort as to the Defendant’s ground of incidental appeal No. 3, a fact-finding court may determine the amount at its discretion, taking into account various circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da41377, Apr. 23, 199).

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the amount of consolation money recognized by the lower court cannot be deemed as significantly contrary to the principle of equity, and thus, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of discretion of the lower court

3. As to the defendant's second ground for appeal

A. The exercise of the right of defense on the ground of extinctive prescription is governed by the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principle of the Civil Act, so if an obligor had shown the same attitude that the obligor would not invoke the prescription after the completion of extinctive prescription, and had the right holder trust it, and if an obligor exercised his right within a considerable period of time that the obligor could expect the completion of extinctive prescription, the obligor’s assertion of the completion of extinctive prescription cannot

However, denying the validity of the statute of limitations based on the principle of trust and good faith is extremely exceptional measures for the system of the statute of limitations that takes the ideology of achieving legal stability, redressing difficulties in proving evidence, and imposing sanctions on negligence in exercising the right. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, "reasonable period" should be limited to a short-term period corresponding to the suspension of prescription under the Civil Act, and where it is inevitable to extend the period due to special circumstances in individual cases, it cannot exceed three years, which is the short-term extinctive prescription period under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, even if it is inevitable for a claim for damages due to tort, considering the fact that the period in the case before and after the Korean War was established, it does not constitute abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Da132139, May 13, 2013; Supreme Court Decision 201Da13819, May 21, 2013).

B. However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the former Bankruptcy Commission rendered a truth-finding decision on November 20, 207 against the deceased, and the Plaintiffs were aware of the fact that they exercised their rights by filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on October 29, 2012. Thus, it is apparent that the Plaintiffs’ instant lawsuit was filed beyond three years from the date of the truth-finding decision. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription does not constitute abuse of rights against the principle of trust and good faith. Nevertheless, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the remainder of extinctive prescription defense against the deceased as part of the previous lawsuit on November 20, 2007, which was three years from the date of the truth-finding decision. Nevertheless, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the remainder of extinctive prescription defense, which affected the Defendant’s right to claim damages under the principle of trust and good faith.

4. Conclusion, therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination, and all of the plaintiffs' appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Kim Jae-han

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il