beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the defendant added a judgment on the argument at the trial of the court of first instance as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is consistent with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(1) In addition, the court of first instance and its determination are justifiable, even if the grounds alleged by the Defendant in the trial are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted in the first instance and the trial were examined, the disposition of this case by the Defendant, which was the grounds for the completion of extinctive prescription, is unlawful. Meanwhile, although the Defendant asserted the absence of business relevance of the injury of the injury of this case at the time of the instant lawsuit, which was the grounds for the disposition of this case, but it is not allowed as a new disposition that cannot be seen as identical in the basic point of view in view of the fact-finding, which is the grounds for the completion of extinctive prescription, and as a new disposition that cannot be seen as identical in the basic point of view. Further, even if the Defendant asserted by the Defendant, even if the Plaintiff had an objective obstacle that could not expect the Plaintiff to exercise his right or the Defendant has granted the same trust that would not invoke the benefit of extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive
However, even in the case of disability benefits for noise in distress, it shall be deemed that the actual disability was eliminated and the exercise of the right was possible when the Supreme Court Decision 2014Du7374 Decided September 4, 2014, stating that the extinctive prescription will run from the time when the symptoms are fixed in the same way as other wound branches. However, the Plaintiff filed a claim for disability benefits only after October 30, 2015 when the period of 13 months has elapsed from this case.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion of extinctive prescription.