1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s determination as to the addition and lectures in the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant stated that "the insurance money shall be paid in accordance with the result of medical advice, and the review thereof shall be delayed, and the period of extinctive prescription for the plaintiff's damage claim has been interrupted because it constitutes the approval of the obligation under Article 168 of the Civil Code. 2) Even if the prescription for domestic affairs has not been interrupted, the defendant showed the same attitude as not allowing the plaintiff to invoke the prescription even if the prescription has been completed, so the defendant's objection to the completion of extinctive prescription constitutes an abuse of rights.

B. Determination 1) As to the allegation of interruption of extinctive prescription, recognition of an obligation as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription is established by indicating that an obligor, who is a party to the claim of interruption of extinctive prescription, recognizes the existence of a right against a person who is a party to the claim of interruption of extinctive prescription, who is a party to the claim of interruption of extinctive prescription, is aware of the existence of the right. The method of indication does not require any form, but can be made impliedly without necessarily requiring any express indication. However, the implied recognition indication should be made in such a way that the obligor, at least on the premise that the obligor is aware of the existence and amount of the obligation, can be inferred by using such indication on the premise that the obligor is aware of the obligation. The fact that there was an approval of the obligation by the obligor as a ground for interruption of the extinctive prescription should be proved by the obligee’s assertion (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da5959, Feb. 17, 2005; 29 November 29, 2007>