logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.09.23 2013나15139
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim concerning the above revoked part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On October 18, 2009, the Plaintiff suffered injury by assaulting the Defendant, and lost a bank containing 20 money of KRW 4,130,00,00 of the market price owned by the Plaintiff at the time (hereinafter “instant accident”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 4,834,60 related to the said injury (= KRW 4,600, KRW 1,400, KRW 3,000, KRW 3,000, KRW 4,130,000, and KRW 4,964,600, and KRW 600, and delay damages therefrom, including the sum of KRW 4,60,00, KRW 4,000.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant expired by prescription.

2. A claim for damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription, unless it is exercised by the victim or his/her legal representative for three years from the date on which he/she became aware of the damage or of the identity of the perpetrator, and the damage in this context is known of the occurrence of the damage and the degree or amount of the damage should not be specifically known. In ordinary cases, the victim of the injury should have been aware of the damage when he/she suffered the injury.

However, there was a new loss that could not have been predicted at all at the time of the tort due to the subsequent legacy, etc.

In a case where damages have been expanded or otherwise likely, it shall be deemed that the new or expanded damages have been known at the time when such cause is proved, and as to the damages newly created or expanded, the period of prescription under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act is in progress from the time when such cause is proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da42797, Sept. 14, 2001). According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 4-1, 4-1, 2, and 5-1, 4-1, 5-1, 2, and 5-2, in collaboration with C, the Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff before the DNA bank, and thus, the Plaintiff abused the Plaintiff on Oct. 18, 2009.

arrow