A. On March 19, 2010, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) suffered injury from G residing in neighboring areas on or around March 19, 2010, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is limited to Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

) The designated parties indicated in the list of the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties, including the Plaintiff (Appointeds) and the designated parties, “Plaintiffs”

[2] Around February 2013, the Defendant delegated the Defendant with a claim for damages arising from a tort against G. However, the Defendant was sentenced to a dismissal ruling from the court on the ground that the statute of limitations has expired, by delaying the filing of a lawsuit against G.

3) The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from March 20, 2010, after the date of G’s tort, to the Plaintiff, 20 million won in total with property and mental compensation, and to the designated parties C, who are the Plaintiff’s spouse, for mental compensation, 3 million won in mental compensation, and 1.5 million won in each case and each of the above amounts. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) at the time when the Plaintiffs delegated the Defendant to the Defendant, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiffs caused a subsequent disability due to G’s tort, and that the extinctive prescription was run from the time of the occurrence of the damage due to the subsequent disability, and thus, he was delegated a lawsuit against G.

2. However, in the course of the litigation, there is a lack of proof of the occurrence of a subsequent disability and the causal relationship, which is dismissed judgment, and the defendant does not fail to perform his/her obligation under the delegation contract.

2. Determination

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the fact that there is no dispute over the existence of one liability for damages, and the purport of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6.

① On March 19, 2010, G was in conflict with the Plaintiff, and C was divided into the Plaintiff’s rank and was in need of approximately two weeks’ treatment to the Plaintiff. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Mar. 19, 2010>