beta
Text
1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is that "from December 23, 2008, to the end of October 23, 2008," which means "from October 2008, to the end of December 23, 2008," and "from October 23, 2008, to the end of the thirteenth of the decision of the court of first instance, the following additional judgments are the same as the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The Defendants’ assertion on the statute of limitations defense of additional determination is acknowledged, even if the Plaintiff’s damage claim of KRW 30 million against the Defendants was recognized, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 23, 2008, which had been three years since October 23, 2008 and March 5, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff’s damage claim has expired by prescription in accordance with Article 766(1) of the Civil Act.
The phrase “date when the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim has practically and specifically recognized the facts constituting the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the harmful act and the damage. Whether the victim is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts constituting the elements of the tort should be reasonably acknowledged by taking into account various objective circumstances in individual cases and considering the circumstances practically enabling the claim for damages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da22249, Jun. 28, 2002). It means that: (a) the fact that the victim was aware of the facts of the occurrence of the damage and the fact that the harmful act was able to seek damages due
(See, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da33450, Aug. 23, 1986). With respect to this case, health class A and 15.