손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. It is true that there is a significant need to protect the rights of the bereaved family members of those who died due to the systematic infringement of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, for the legal stability through the prescription system, the judgment of the court of first instance, which received the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription regarding the claim of this case that was raised after three years passed from June 30, 2010, which was the point of time when the activities of the former
The court's reasoning concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments to Chapter 13, Chapter 14, the decision of the court of first instance. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case No. 2009Da66969, which is similar to the 2009Da66969, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights, since the Supreme Court rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription and recognized liability for damages, there was a de facto disability that the Plaintiffs could not exercise their rights objectively, and that the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights, since it exercised the right by filing the instant lawsuit within three years from September 8, 2011, which was the date of the said judgment, or from June 30, 2011, which
The Plaintiffs filed a claim for damages against the Defendant with the same content as the instant claim, but subsequently dismissed the claim on the ground that the extinctive prescription expires.
(1) The Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72599 Decided May 29, 2008 (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da33469 Decided May 29, 2008). However, solely on such circumstances, it is difficult to deem that there was a de facto obstacle that the Plaintiffs could not exercise their rights objectively until the Supreme Court rendered a decision rejecting the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription in a case similar to the following cases.
Even if there were de facto disabilities
The lawsuit of this case is also brought.