[1] In a case where a loss unexpected at the time of tort due to after-the-counter legacy, etc. occurs or such loss has been expanded, the period of extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages for that part

[2] Interpretation of an agreement between the perpetrator and the victim to pay a certain amount and give up the remainder of the claim regarding tort damages

[3] The case holding that even though there was an agreement between the perpetrator and the victim on the basis of the result of appraisal of the victim's life expectancy, where the victim continued to continue to exist after the lapse of the above life expectancy, and the result of appraisal that the life expectancy of the victim would be significantly extended compared to the previous prediction, the above agreement does not have the effect on the damage to be added corresponding thereto, and the extinctive prescription of the claim for compensation is proceeding from the time when the previous life expectancy predicted has passed

[1] A claim for damages caused by a tort is extinguished by prescription, unless it is exercised by the victim or his legal representative for three years from the date on which he became aware of the damage and of the identity of the tortfeasor. The damage in this context is known of the occurrence of the damage, and the degree or amount of the damage does not have to be specifically known. In ordinary cases, the injured victim shall be deemed to have known of the damage when he suffered the injury. However, in case where there was a new damage which could not have been predicted at all at the time of the tort due to legacy, etc. or where the damage was expanded as expected, it shall be deemed that the injured party was aware of the new or expanded damage when it was proved that such a new or expanded damage occurred at the time of the tort, and as to the newly or expanded damage, the prescription period under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act shall run from the time when such a

[2] When the perpetrator and the victim agree to receive a certain amount of amount and waive the remainder of the claim, they cannot claim compensation again after the occurrence of the damage. However, the agreement is made in a situation where it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of the damage, and it is impossible to expect the damage in light of the circumstances at the time of agreement. Thus, if the parties expected the damage after the occurrence of a serious damage, it cannot be deemed that the parties would have renounced their right to claim compensation for the damage, and if it is reasonable to view that the parties would have not agreed on the amount of the agreement if they anticipated the damage after the occurrence of a serious damage, the parties would not have renounced their right to

[3] The case holding that it is reasonable to view that, on the grounds that the result of appraisal that the life expectancy of the victim who suffered severe brain damage caused by the traffic accident is predicted to an extent of about 6 years and 2 months from the time of the above accident, the victim and the victim agreed to receive a certain amount of money and waives the claim for the damages caused by the above accident, but as the victim continues to exist even after the above life expectancy period has expired, if the victim's life life is proved to be extended more than 8 years and 3 months compared to the previous prediction, it is reasonable to view that, in the event that the symptoms of the victim have changed due to the symptoms and the victim's life life is to be extended, it would have failed to reach an agreement with the amount of the above agreement if it was expected that it would not have been possible at the time of the above agreement, and that the subsequent damage would not have been expected to have occurred, the above agreement would not have been effective as to the subsequent damage and that the period of extinctive prescription of the previous claim for compensation would have expired unless there were any other circumstances anticipated damage after the above.

[1] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 105, 732, and 750 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 105, 732, 750, and 766(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 80Da2150 delivered on July 7, 1981 (Gong1981, 14152), Supreme Court Decision 92Da42583 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 442), Supreme Court Decision 94Da16359 delivered on February 3, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1148) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 87Da16078 delivered on April 27, 198 (Gong198, 900), Supreme Court Decision 90Da16078 delivered on April 9, 191 (Gong191, 1346), Supreme Court Decision 97Da31060 delivered on March 23, 200 (Gong1991, 1346)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Ba, Attorneys Lee Woo-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Vindication, Attorney Jeon Jae-in, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 2000Na8340 Delivered on December 27, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The right to claim damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised within three years from the date on which the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the damage is known, and the degree or amount of the damage is not specified. In ordinary cases, the injured party shall be deemed to have known of the damage when the injured party suffered the damage. However, in case where a new damage could not have been predicted at the time of the tort due to a subsequent legacy, etc. or where the damage was expanded as expected, it shall be deemed that the injured party was aware of the new or expanded damage when the cause is proved, and as to the newly or expanded damage, the prescription period under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act shall expire from the time when the cause is proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Da42583, Dec. 8, 1992; 94Da16359, Feb. 3, 1995).

In addition, when the perpetrator and the victim agree to receive a certain amount of amount and waive the remainder of the claim for damages caused by a tort, they cannot claim compensation again after the occurrence of the damage. However, the agreement was made in a situation where it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of the damage, and it is impossible to expect the damage in light of the circumstances at the time of agreement, and it is reasonable to deem that the parties would not have reached a settlement with the agreed amount under generally accepted social norms if the parties anticipated the damage for a serious damage, the parties' intent cannot be deemed to have renounced their right to claim compensation for the damage, and thus, the parties can claim compensation again (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da16078, Apr. 9, 191; 9Da63176, Mar. 23, 2000).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the defendant to compensate for all damages incurred by the automobile accident occurred during the operation of the automobile No. 1 and No. 5363. On March 12, 1992, the plaintiff had been driving the automobile above 35 years old, and suffered severe cerebral injury for the plaintiff remaining after 9 years old. The plaintiff's 1 and the non-party 2's claim for damages compensation against the non-party 9 was made for 9 years old, Daegu District Court No. 2647, Feb. 11, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party 1's claim for damages compensation for the non-party 3's remaining after 9 years old, based on the presumption that the non-party 1 and the non-party 4's remaining mental injury occurred during the period of 9 years old. The plaintiff's remaining 1's death.

The facts are as follows: (a) unlike the appraisal result of the previous suit predicted that the plaintiff sustained vegetable and blaging and died around 6 years and 2 months after the accident of this case, it is reasonable to view that, unlike the appraisal result of the previous suit which was predicted that the plaintiff would have died after the accident of this case, the plaintiff's remaining vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegeical vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vese.

The judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in its entirety rejected all the defendant's arguments on the validity of extinctive prescription and waiver of rights, and then ordered a lump sum payment of the total amount of damages incurred prior to the closing of argument in the court below, while it appears that the court ordered the payment of a monthly fixed amount on the condition of the plaintiff's survival with respect to the opening expenses and medical expenses to be incurred each month for the period up to the remaining life life of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the validity of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)