The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Southern District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on October 11, 2008, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages of this case runs from October 11, 2008, on the ground that the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the remaining disability of this case was caused by the accident of this case and that the extended damage was not anticipated at the time of the agreement of this case.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the initial date of extinctive prescription under Article 766(1) of the

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In a case where the requirements for the notice of lawsuit are met, if the person who made the notice of lawsuit expresses his/her intent to demand performance of obligation to the defendant against the defendant himself/herself, the peremptory effect of interruption of prescription under Article 174 of the Civil Act is recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da14340, Jul. 9, 2009). Furthermore, in light of the purport of the system, it is desirable to interpret the starting point or the expiration point for the original right holder, as it is desirable to interpret the starting point or the expiration point in favor of the original right holder, unlike the common peremptory notice, the peremptory notice via the notice of lawsuit is made through the court’s act. Therefore, if the statute of limitations expires before the delivery of the notice of lawsuit due to a sudden cause, it is reasonable to deem that the interruption becomes effective by analogy Article 265 of the Civil Procedure Act in cases of the peremptory notice through the notice of lawsuit, by analogying to the court.

B. According to the records, the Plaintiff submitted a written notice of lawsuit to the court on June 7, 201, which was before the lapse of three years from October 11, 2008, and the delivery of the said written notice was about five months after the said written notice was served.