손해배상(기)
The plaintiff, including the claim extended by this court, has lost profit from the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance.
1. On March 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on March 13, 2012 against the joint Plaintiff A, etc. of the Seoul Central District Court 2012, together with the Defendant, seeking consolation money and damages equivalent to the amount of lost income due to illegal acts, such as illegal confinement and harsh treatment of investigators affiliated with the Defendant’s former National Security Planning Division (hereinafter “Safety Contribution”).
On March 26, 2013, the first instance court sentenced the claim for consolation money and the claim for damages equivalent to lost profit in part.
As to each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff and the defendant, each appeal was filed against Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2006597. On July 11, 2013, the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim for consolation money for lost profits on the ground that there is insufficient proof of the relation between the defendant's tort and the damage of the plaintiff's claim for consolation money for lost profits.
With respect to the claim for lost profits, the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the claim for consolation money with Supreme Court Decision 2013Da209916 Decided each of the Supreme Court. On January 29, 2014, the Supreme Court: “The Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of six months from the date when the decision on compensation for the crime became final and conclusive; thus, the Defendant exercised its right within a reasonable period that could prevent the Defendant from defending the Defendant’s defense of extinction
shall not be deemed to exist.
“For reasons, the statute of limitations has expired pursuant to Articles 166(1) and 766(2) of the Civil Act
In light of the above, the Defendant’s final appeal accepted and reversed the part against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s final appeal is with merit as otherwise alleged in the ground of final appeal.
Even if the defendant's defense of extinction of prescription is reasonable, the decision dismissing the plaintiff's appeal was affirmed, and the part of the claim for lost profit became final and conclusive as it is.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff.