구상금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【The part to be determined additionally】 The Plaintiff asserts that, since the previous lawsuit filed by the instant lawsuit, KRW 27,742,590 of the nursing benefits additionally paid from July 1, 2012 to May 31, 2015 was damages that A could not have been entirely predicted at the time of the instant accident, “the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the damage”, which is the starting point of the extinctive prescription, should be deemed the date on which the nursing benefits were paid.
A claim for damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription, unless it is exercised by the victim or his/her legal representative for three years from the date when he/she became aware of the damage or the tortfeasor. Here, the damage or the tortfeasor's awareness is aware of the occurrence of the damage and the fact that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor's illegal act, and the degree or amount of the damage does not have to be specifically known. In ordinary cases, the victim of the injury should be deemed to have known of the
(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da42583 Decided December 8, 1992, etc.). Meanwhile, in a case where the part of a claim can be specified, a partial claim does not take effect as to the remaining part of the interruption of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 74Da1557, Feb. 25, 1975). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, a part of the nursing benefits paid to A, from March 13, 2012 to June 30, 2012, was granted a judgment of acceptance upon receiving a partial claim for the nursing benefits paid to A, from March 13, 2012 to June 30, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the nursing benefits paid after July 1, 2012, which was claimed by the instant lawsuit as of June 19, 2015, were due to the discovery of testamentary gift.
This part of the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted, but is governed by Article 87 (1) of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act.