손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The defendant.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is as follows: (a) 3-4-6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of forging the instant fishery permit in the wooden District Court Branch on January 17, 2012; (b) F, who filed an appeal and filed an appeal by F, was dismissed; and (c) the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 8, 2012; and (d) the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court is deemed as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following 2-6-6 of the judgment, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion P is in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff.
P demanded compensation for damages on December 2, 2015 on the ground that the fishery permit of this case was forged by the Defendant and C, his father, and C approved the obligation to P by the end of November 2016. As such, the Plaintiff’s damage claim against the Defendant was suspended by extinctive prescription.
B. Determination 1) Approval as the ground for interruption of prescription is established by expressing that the debtor who is the party to the interruption of prescription, who is the party to the interruption of prescription, is aware of the existence of the right to the person who would lose the right due to the completion of the statute of limitations or his/her agent. In such case, the method of indication does not require any form, and does not require any explicit or implied. However, the effect of the interruption of prescription due to approval takes effect when the notice of approval reaches the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da30178, Sept. 29, 1995). 2) The person liable for damages on the ground that the fishery permit certificate of this case was forged, namely, the debtor who is the party to the statute of limitations interest, is the defendant.
However, evidence No. 17 (Recording) is a dialogue between P and C, and the defendant stays in Seoul at the time of the above dialogue.