A judicial claim for part of damage caused by a tort and the ground for interrupting extinctive prescription for another part of the damage

The claim for damages against a part of the damage shall not take effect as the "claim" for the other part of the damage, which shall not take effect of interrupting extinctive prescription.

Article 168 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Countries

Daegu District Court Decision 66Na361 delivered on February 16, 1967

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below's claim for compensation for part of damage caused by tort does not have the effect as a claim under Article 168 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act with respect to other parts of damage (the original decision). With respect to the plaintiffs 1 and 2' claim for main lawsuit, the court below's decision dismissed the plaintiff 1 and the defendant's claim for compensation for damages due to the death of the above non-party 1 who was sentenced as of December 21, 1965 in favor of the plaintiff 1 and the above non-party 1's claim for compensation for damages due to the death of the above non-party 1's death of the above non-party 1, who was the predecessor of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 (the ○○ at the time of the accident)'s main lawsuit by the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2, as of June 16, 1962.

2. In addition, under the view that, with respect to the claim of plaintiffs 3 and 4 by the original judgment, the plaintiffs 7 South South Korean non-party 2 (i.e., i., the accident caused by the driver's negligence on the part of the non-party 3 on the part of the driver's disease belonging to the Marine Corps for the Marine Corps in wartime on February 28, 1958, the plaintiffs, barring special circumstances, should have known the damage caused by the tort of the above non-party 3 as the date of the accident, shall be dismissed the plaintiffs' claims that were not known at the time of the accident due to the unknown whereabouts of the liability for the accident and lack of legal knowledge, and it is not recognized that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding the rejection of the claim on the ground that the claim for damages had already been extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription prior to the filing of the principal lawsuit.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Articles 400, 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) and Ma-Ma-Mabbh