손해배상금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,929,430 as well as 5% per annum from March 21, 2007 to October 21, 2016, and the following.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff damages and delay damages as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article, since it is acknowledged that the defendant, without notifying the fact that the plaintiff suffered from the cancer, by deceiving the plaintiff's employees after purchasing the plaintiff's insurance products, and by receiving KRW 41,209,430, and KRW 720,000 on March 21, 2007, respectively, as insurance money.
2. The defendant's assertion argues that "the extinctive prescription has expired since three years have passed since the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendant".
"Date of knowing the damage and the perpetrator" in 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 actual and specific recognition of the facts constituting the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relation between the harmful act
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7577, May 27, 2010). No. 1 written evidence No. 2014, supra, is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff, when a criminal complaint was filed by the Defendant, actually and specifically recognized the facts constituting tort when the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint, and there is no other evidence to support this. Therefore, the Defendant’
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.