손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment by this court to this case, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Additional matters to be determined
A. The Plaintiff’s primary grounds of appeal are that the first instance court deemed that the starting point of the short-term statute of limitations for the right to claim damages due to defects in the installation and preservation of structures was the time of rendering a judgment in the first instance court (U.S. District Court 2014Gahap1435), and that the said right to claim damages became extinct due to the lapse of the short-term statute of limitations.
B. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of calculating the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, etc., actually and specifically, recognized the facts requiring the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the victim, etc., actually and specifically recognized the facts requiring the tort should be reasonably acknowledged by taking into account various objective circumstances in individual cases and taking into account the situation in which the claim
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da54686 Decided November 10, 201, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in the first instance trial, namely, ① the pertinent case is a case where a lessee of the instant building filed against the Defendant for compensation for damage caused by nonperformance of the duty of repair under a lease agreement. In the relevant case, the court presumed that the instant fire was caused by the electrical seal line of the front side of the instant building, and this is a defect in the area controlled and managed by the Defendant, the owner of the instant building, and the lessor.