1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. The court's explanation on this part of the claim for damages or the claim for mutual aid is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. The court's explanation on this part of the claim for damages or the amount of the mutual aid money is based on the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

Since it is the same as the statement in the claim, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. (1) Whether the statute of limitations has expired (A) The provision of Articles 664 and 664 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Mutual Insurance) of the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the extinctive prescription of a claim for mutual-aid which the client has against the mutual-aid company, since the mutual-aid business operated by the defendant is similar to the mutual-aid business under the Insurance Business Act even though it is not an insurance business under the Insurance Business Act.

Article 62 (Extinctive Prescription) of the Commercial Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the provisions of Article 662 (Extinctive Prescription) and the provisions of Articles 662 (Extinctive Prescription) of the Commercial Act for two years, and if it is not exercised for one year, the right

applicable mutatis mutandis to the short-term extinctive prescription

(B) In a case where the claimant for a mutual-aid cannot confirm the occurrence of a mutual-aid accident on the grounds that it is objectively unclear whether the mutual-aid accident occurred, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da47094, Mar. 28, 1995), the extinctive prescription of the claim for a mutual-aid should be interpreted to run from the time when the claimant for a mutual-aid knew or could have known the occurrence of the accident