The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, around the time the first instance court rendered a judgment on the instant case where the lessee of the instant building sought damages against the Defendant due to nonperformance of the repair obligation under a lease agreement (hereinafter “related case”), the Plaintiff specifically recognized the existence of the liability for damages arising from the cause of the instant fire and the defect in the installation and preservation of structures, and accepted the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages was extinguished by the statute of limitations, since three years have elapsed since the instant lawsuit was received, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

"Date of knowing the damage and the perpetrator" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of the claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when a realistic and specific recognition of the requirement of the tort, such as the occurrence of damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and the existence of proximate causal relation between the harmful act

When the victim actually and specifically recognizes the requirement of tort, it shall be reasonably recognized by taking into account various objective circumstances in individual cases and taking into account the circumstances in which the claim for damages is feasible.

(Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da30440 Decided April 24, 2008; 201Da54686 Decided November 10, 201; 201Da54686 Decided July 24, 201, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2018Da215664, Jul. 24, 2018).

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the following circumstances are revealed.

1. Although the first instance judgment of the relevant case, which recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages regarding the instant fire, was sentenced on December 11, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal and a final appeal and rendered a judgment on April 15, 2016.