1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The facts following the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 2-4, the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On April 18, 2012, the Defendant: (a) driven a vehicle registration number C trucking around 02:38 on April 18, 2012; and (b) shocked the Plaintiff’s two-wheeled vehicle crossinging the crosswalk between India and India to the village market near Songpa-gu Seoul (Seoul).

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). (b)

On September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff was diagnosed under Section 1 of the Fulan mination of the Fulan executives on the date of the instant accident, and was diagnosed with damage to the upper right-side pelvision and pressure.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that the Plaintiff sustained KRW 9 million from lost profit due to the instant accident (i.e., KRW 500,000 per week income x 18 weeks), KRW 13,40,000 in total, 6,000 in taxi expenses, 6,000 in the future sexual surgery expenses, and KRW 985,00 in property damages due to scrapping of a two-wheeled vehicle, and claimed KRW 3.0 million in consolation money for mental damage.

3. Determination

A. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 3 and 5, and evidence No. 9-1, the Plaintiff hospitalized 25 days between April 18, 2012 and May 12, 2012 due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff paid 32,00 won at the purchase cost of necks and schographs, and 15,000 won with wheel chairs rental fee due to the instant accident, although it is deemed that there is no evidence to acknowledge the remainder of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

B. However, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's claim for damages has expired by prescription. Thus, the claim for damages caused by tort has expired by prescription unless it is exercised within three years from the date when the victim or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator, and in this regard, the damage should not be claimed.