손해배상(의)
1. All appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the part resulting from the plaintiffs' appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added an additional determination as to the assertion added by the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of
2. Inasmuch as the Defendant brought the instant lawsuit on September 30, 2016 after three years from February 2012, which was known by the Plaintiffs as to the Defendant’s tort and damages therefrom, the Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations expired.
Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that a claim for damages caused by a tort shall expire if it is not exercised for three years from the date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator.
The "date when the victim or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" refers to the date when the victim or his/her legal representative actually and specifically recognizes the damage and the perpetrator, and the recognition is not sufficient only by the presumption or awareness of the damage occurrence but also by the fact that the harmful act constitutes a tort, namely, the awareness of the requisite fact of the tort, that there is the existence of the illegal harmful act, the occurrence of the damage, and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da13282, Mar. 10, 201). Whether the victim, etc. ought to reasonably recognize the requirement of tort at any time and in detail, considering the various objective circumstances of the individual case and the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible.
(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da22249 delivered on June 28, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs 6 through 8 are not medical specialists in the case of medical accidents.