1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the plaintiff's argument is insufficient to admit the plaintiff's argument. The court's explanation of this case is that it stated the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following determination of the plaintiff's argument at the court of first instance, since it stated the reasons for the judgment in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Additional Part】 The Plaintiff did not anticipate that additional medical expenses incurred to the victim were incurred in addition to the medical expenses already incurred at the time of closing the argument in the first lawsuit, and the victim was diagnosed as requiring medical treatment after the first lawsuit, and then the damage was incurred only when the Plaintiff actually paid medical expenses to the victim. Thus, the Plaintiff asserts that extinctive prescription will run from the time when the Plaintiff paid insurance benefits to the victim.

The right to claim damages due to an illegal act is extinguished by prescription, unless it is 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 tortfeasor. Here, the damage and the identity of the tortfeasor are known to the fact that the damage was incurred and that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor's illegal act. In ordinary cases, since the degree or amount of the damage should not be specifically known, the injured party was aware of the damage when the injured party suffered the damage.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da42583 delivered on December 8, 1992, etc.). Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the victim needs to open defense only after the first lawsuit.

There is no evidence to prove that a person was diagnosed due to or after the legacy, and there is no new damage only after the first lawsuit.