Part 3: “A parent” shall delete the corresponding part of the part corresponding to the part corresponding to the 3rd 1st eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth.

2. The court's explanation on this part of the claim for damages is based on the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. Since the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case was filed five years from February 8, 1988, which was the date of the occurrence of the accident of this case, the plaintiffs' right to claim damages against the defendant was already extinguished by prescription before the lawsuit of this case was filed.

B. 1) The extinctive prescription of a claim for damages against the State caused by an illegal act is complete if the injured party or his/her legal representative fails to exercise the claim within three years from the date on which he/she became aware of such damage and of the identity of the perpetrator (Article 766(1) and 766 of the Civil Act), but the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a illegal act expires (the extinctive prescription of a claim for damages expires if it is not exercised within three years from the date on which the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of such damage and of the identity of the perpetrator). On the other hand, if it is not exercised within five years from the date of the illegal act, the extinctive prescription shall expire (the extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a illegal act under Articles 96 and 96 of

(2) against the State.