1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following "2. height", and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. The dismissal of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: 8th to 14th of the judgment of the court of first instance.

As seen earlier, the starting point of the statute of limitations for claims for indemnity and indemnity of this case is as follows. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that "The victim of the injury was aware of the occurrence of the damage, and the degree or amount of the damage does not have to be specifically known. In ordinary cases, the victim of the injury was aware of the damage when the injury suffered. However, in a case where the new damage, which could not have been predicted at the time of tort due to post-post gift, was incurred or expanded as a result of the occurrence of the damage, the new or expanded damage was known at the time of the occurrence of the accident. As such, the new or expanded damage was discovered at the time of the occurrence of the accident, the period of the statute of limitations under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act shall continue from the time of the occurrence of the accident. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the damage was continuously treated from the date of the accident in this case and that the extinctive prescription of the defendant's claim for indemnity against the defendant was completed at least 15 years prior to the date of the accident in this case.