1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment identical to that stated in paragraph (2) with respect to the Defendants’ claim for the completion of extinctive prescription, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The addition;

A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff and the deceased A could have filed a lawsuit of this case against the Defendants on or around September 26, 2008 on the grounds that the internal intent had been terminated at the Maritime Police Station, but thereafter, they had filed a lawsuit of this case after the lapse of the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act. The Defendants asserted that the said claim for damages had already expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

B. The "date when the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of calculating the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means not only the occurrence of the damage and the perpetrator, but also the situation when the harmful act becomes aware that it is possible to claim damages as a tort. As such, the facts constituting the elements of the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage, should be reasonably and specifically recognized. Whether the injured party, etc., was aware of the facts of the requirements of the tort in reality and in detail, should be reasonably recognized in consideration of various objective circumstances in each individual case and circumstances where the claim for damages

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da30735 Decided September 3, 199, Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2123 Decided April 23, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 97Da5262 Decided March 13, 1998, and Supreme Court Decision 97Da52622 Decided March 13, 199). As to this case, the health unit and the deceased are under the ordinary weather conditions.