1. The court below's reasoning stated that "a claim for damages caused by a tort shall be extinguished by prescription, unless it is exercised within three years from the date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, even though the facts alleged by the plaintiff were true, and in the absence of special circumstances, the plaintiff, the injured party, was aware of the damage and the perpetrator at the time of the accident alleged by the plaintiff, and according to some persons' statement that is early at the place, it can be recognized that the head of this case was received on August 23, 1980. Thus, since it is apparent that the claim of this case was filed on the day after the lapse of three years from the calendar period, barring special circumstances, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be extinguished by the expiration of prescription.

2. The phrase "damage" under Article 766 of the Civil Act, which provides for the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, refers to the fact of damage caused by an illegal act, and "offender" means the person who will become the other party to the claim for damages, and "date of becoming aware" means the victim or his/her legal representative, realizing and specific awareness of the above damage and the perpetrator, and the victim, who is the right holder, bears the burden of proving that he/she is the claimant for the benefit of prescription (see Supreme Court Decision 76Da2008 delivered on June 7, 197), and there is no data to find that the plaintiff, as the victim, was aware of the damage and the perpetrator immediately after examining the records of this case.

According to the records, the traffic accident occurred around 21:00 on August 22, 197, and the plaintiff was in a mixed condition due to the accident, and on the police investigation line that started an investigation by the residents' report near the accident, both the plaintiff and the plaintiff were designated as a suspect, and only after the day of the 25th day of the same month, it cannot be seen that the plaintiff, the victim, was aware of the above crime (the defendant was denied the crime). Thus, in this case without the special circumstance, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the short-term extinctive prescription, and by concluding that the plaintiff was aware of the damage and the perpetrator at that time without any evidence, even if the party member's burden of proof was violated, and without any evidence, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded without merit. Accordingly, the appeal is reversed.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)