beta
(영문) 대법원 2016.05.12 2015다254293

손해배상

Text

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the claim for extinctive prescription in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence admitted by the lower court, it can be deemed that there was an objective obstacle that the Plaintiffs could not expect to exercise the right to claim damages of this case against the Defendant until July 5, 2013, and the remainder of the Plaintiffs except Plaintiff P was September 16, 2013, and Plaintiff P was filed on September 17, 2013 with the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gada842773, Sept. 17, 2013, and the case was cultivated under the same court 2014Gahap518902, and thereafter the case was consolidated under the same court 2013Gahap69274.

It is clear that the term " March 25, 2014," in Article 9 of the lower judgment, is an error.

The plaintiffs filed each lawsuit in this case, which is apparent in fact within six months from the date on which the above new judgment became final and conclusive, and thus, the plaintiffs exercised their rights within a considerable period of time that could prevent the defendant from defense of extinctive prescription.

The judgment below

Although the reasoning is somewhat insufficient, the court below recognized the State's liability for damages, and rejected the defendant's defense for the completion of extinctive prescription is just in conclusion, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of the extinctive prescription.

2. In the case of calculating consolation money due to a tort, it is consistent with the principle of fair liability for damages, i.e., the victim’s circumstances, such as the victim’s age, occupation, social status, property and living conditions, degree of suffering from damage, degree of negligence of the victim, etc., as well as the victim’s intentional intent and negligence, motive and cause of the harmful act, and attitude of the perpetrator after the tort. The court can determine consolation money at its own discretion in consideration of such various circumstances.