(a) If the remainder of the lawsuit for which a partial claim is specified is pending, which has been reserved, is brought in a separate lawsuit, whether it constitutes a double lawsuit;

(b) Time to calculate the extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by tort;

A. In the previous lawsuit, when only a part of the claim for medical expenses was specified and the other part was clearly reserved to the effect that it would be claimed as a separate lawsuit, the subject matter of the lawsuit in the previous lawsuit is limited to the medical expenses of the part claimed, and the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous lawsuit does not extend to the medical expenses of the remaining part reserved. Therefore, even if the remaining claim for medical expenses withheld due to the same unlawful act during the previous lawsuit was filed as a separate lawsuit, it does not constitute double lawsuit.

B. The extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort shall run from the occurrence of damage and the awareness of the perpetrator, not from the tort. Therefore, medical expenses incurred by re-hospitalizes which could not have been predicted at the time of the accident, and expenses incurred by sex surgery in the future were new damage and became known only at the time of re-hospitalize, and the prescription will run thereafter.

A. Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act: Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 766 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu845 Delivered on November 23, 1982

electric utility operator

Kim Jong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 84Na342 delivered on November 6, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to paragraphs 1, 3:

In a lawsuit for the same active and property damage as this case, when the plaintiff explicitly reserved the purport that only part of the treatment costs will be claimed as separate lawsuit, the res judicata effect of the judgment in the previous lawsuit shall not extend to the treatment costs of the remaining parts reserved, and even if the remaining claim for treatment costs reserved in the previous lawsuit was filed as separate lawsuit, it shall not constitute double lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu845, Nov. 23, 1982). According to the facts established by the court below, prior to the plaintiff's lawsuit for this case, the plaintiff did not claim for treatment costs of the previous lawsuit until Nov. 13, 1982; 1.00Da16999, Nov. 14, 198; 200Da198499, Nov. 14, 200; 2000Da198199, Nov. 14, 201).

With respect to the fourth point:

The extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation for damages due to a tort under Article 766 of the Civil Act shall commence from the time when the plaintiff became aware of the occurrence of damages and of the perpetrator, and according to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff was hospitalized in the Gyeong Medical Center after the accident in this case and discharged on January 21, 1981, and the treatment was not expected later, and the treatment was provided until December 14 of the same year after re-hospitalized again. After re-hospitalized again, the treatment of the above re-hospitalized again would be subject to the first half of the year, first half of the year, first half of the year, first half of the year, second half of the year, second half of the year, second half of the year, second half of the year, second half of the year, second half of the year, second half of the year, second of the year, second of the year, second of the year, second of the year, second of the year, second of the year, second of the year, second of the year, second of the year.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 5:

In conclusion, the court below found 400,000 won in the previous litigation (Seoul High Court Decision 82Na1199 delivered on September 20, 1982, which found that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence that adopted the witness's false testimony, or that the treatment expenses for re-hospitalized from November 13, 1982 included 1.2 million won in the previous litigation (Seoul High Court Decision 82Na1199 delivered on September 20, 199). The court below held that the court below erred in failing to examine this issue by exercising the defendant's right to seek proof, etc., or that the court below ordered the defendant to pay damages for delay at a rate of 5 percent per annum from the day following the date of delivery that makes up for the future treatment expenses, while each of the above reasons was merely erroneous for the interpretation of each of the above Acts and subordinate statutes as alleged in the arguments. Thus, all of the grounds for appeal are not justified.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)