The extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort is not run from the date when the victim became aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and the criminal judgment against the perpetrator is not run from the time when the

B. Partial claims do not take effect of interrupting prescription against the remainder.

Since a partial claim does not take effect as to the remaining claim, if an obligee has made a judicial claim and subsequently made the remainder, the interruption of prescription takes effect as to the remainder of the claim only when the remainder has been made.

Article 766 of the Civil Act, Article 168 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Gyeonggi Passenger Transport Corporation

Seoul Civil History and Seoul High Court Decision 68Na1828 delivered on March 21, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

The original judgment, based on evidence, recognized that the plaintiff had been aware of the occurrence of damages incurred on December 10, 1964 and that the perpetrator was the defendant company, so it is obvious that the plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's assertion that he knew of the occurrence of damages and the perpetrator on June 12, 1965, and Eul evidence No. 6 (certificate) cannot be a evidence to reverse the recognition of the original judgment. Thus, there is no difference in judgment like the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment. Further, the original judgment recognized that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff was aware of the tort on December 13, 1964 based on evidence that the plaintiff asserted that it was erroneous against the truth, and recognized the revocation thereof, even after examining the first record, there was no error in the rules of evidence in the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding in the original judgment, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

The second ground for appeal is examined as follows:

The extinctive prescription under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act refers to the date on which the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and cannot proceed from the time when the criminal judgment on the perpetrator becomes final and conclusive, and since some of the following claims are not effective in the interruption of prescription against the remaining claims, if an obligee claims the remainder after a partial claim was made, then the interruption of prescription becomes effective for the remaining claims only at the time when the remainder of the claim was made. Therefore, there is no merit in holding that the original judgment is just and there is

The third ground of appeal is examined as follows:

Even after reviewing the original judgment by comparing the records, there is no error in the exercise of the right of tiny or incomplete deliberation such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Kim Young-gu