1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision, in addition to the following additional parts, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

(a) Forms 11 to 19 of the decision of the first instance court are as follows.

According to the evidence No. 32, C’s claim for the payment of damages established in Seoul High Court 2013Na55838 on August 8, 2013, and the fact that B’s sectional owners received the claim attachment and collection order against Defendant Sambu case as the debtor on January 22, 2014, and collected damages established in Seoul Central District Court 201Gahap18684 on January 22, 2014. However, it is difficult to view that the above claim and collection were made two years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period from the date of each insurance accident with respect to C and B, and thus, the interruption of prescription becomes effective.

The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

(b)Nos. 11 and 19 of the first instance judgment shall add the following:

C) The Plaintiff asserts that the damage claim and the damage claim of this case, the subsequent suit, constitute a claim within the scope of identity, and thus, the interruption of extinctive prescription pursuant to a judicial claim was effective as to the whole right of the Plaintiff’s damage claim established in each prior suit of this case. The interruption of prescription due to a judicial claim is effective only between the parties concerned and their successors (Article 169 and Article 169 of the Civil Act). As examined in the foregoing facts, each of the parties to each of the instant prior suit is limited to the designated parties appointed by the respective sectional owners C and B, the Plaintiff, and the joint Defendant of the first instance trial, and thus, it does not affect the interruption of prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's status on a different premise is the same.