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 reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition of the following judgments, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Judgment】

A. In relation to the initial date of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim insurance money, the Defendant alleged that the Defendant did not claim insurance money any longer by causing a mistake in accordance with the Plaintiff’s wrong guidance that the Defendant breached the obligation to notify after

Inasmuch as the agreement entered in a port (hereinafter “instant agreement”) was made, this case’s agreement is revoked, and the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription should be calculated from August 24, 2012, which additionally claims for insurance proceeds of the difference due to the difference between class 2 and class 3 of occupational water supply.

B. In light of the determination, the right to claim is nothing more than abstract right before the occurrence of the insurance accident, but it is possible to exercise the right from that time after the occurrence of the insurance accident becomes final and conclusive as specific right. Thus, in cases where there are circumstances under which the holder of the right to claim was unable to know the occurrence of the insurance accident without negligence because it is objectively unclear whether or not the insurance accident occurred, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the insurance accident will run from the time when the insurance accident occurred or could have been known,

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da36521 delivered on November 11, 1997, etc.). In addition, extinctive prescription refers to a case where a right occurs and the right is exercised, and the right is exercised only when it is not possible to exercise the right. The case where “it is impossible to exercise the right” refers to a case where there is a disability as prescribed by the law on the exercise of the right. In fact, the existence of the right or the possibility of exercising the right was not known.