The judgment below

Among them, the part against the plaintiff shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting date of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, etc. reasonably and specifically, knows the facts requiring the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relationship between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the victim, etc. is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts requiring the tort should be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of various objective circumstances in each individual case and the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on June 28, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 201Da54686 Decided November 10, 201, etc.). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court asserted that (i) residents, such as D, have caused property losses, etc. to the occupants of the instant apartment in relation to the 10-year defect repair disposal, etc., the council of occupants’ representatives (hereinafter referred to as the “former council of occupants’ representatives”) at the time of opening a general meeting of residents around September 4, 2009, the council of occupants’ representatives, including the Defendant, who was the president of the former council of occupants’ representatives, dismissed the representatives of each Dong including the former council of occupants’ representatives, and decided to constitute a new council of occupants’ representatives on September 21, 2009, and accordingly, (ii) the Plaintiff concluded a new management contract with the council of occupants’ representatives on September 24, 2009.