beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Determination on the grounds for the claim
A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had sexual assault (hereinafter “instant tort”) over several times from June 1990 to September 14, 2013. As such, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 50,000,000, which is equivalent to the property and mental damage suffered by the instant tort.
B. Since the Defendant asserts that the right to claim damages that the Plaintiff asserts has already become extinct due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s objection to extinctive prescription is first examined prior to the judgment on the grounds
Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides, “The right to claim compensation for damage caused by a tort shall expire by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date when the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and of the identity of the perpetrator.” The fact that the lawsuit of this case was brought on March 22, 2017, which was the date when three years elapsed from September 14, 2013, which was the date when the Plaintiff’s final illegal act was asserted by the Plaintiff, is apparent in the record. Thus, the Plaintiff’s right to claim compensation against the Defendant has
As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitations has not yet expired since April 27, 2017, the date when it became aware of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of mental damage caused by the instant tort, and that, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff was found to have undergone a psychological evaluation that the Plaintiff was suffering from depression, etc. due to the instant tort at C Hospital on April 27, 2017, which was after the instant lawsuit was filed. However, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff was taking advantage of the Defendant’s sexual intercourse caused by the instant tort, and that the Plaintiff was taking advantage of the Defendant’s mental treatment due to the instant tort on or before January 2014, when the instant case was pending.