1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Plaintiff’s assertion

Although the Plaintiff did not embezzled money related to the defect construction, the Plaintiff asserts that at around 19:00 on October 26, 2014, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff as consolation money for defamation, the Plaintiff and other residents of the C apartment community center in Dongducheon-si, the Plaintiff et al. gather in the place where the occupants, including the Plaintiff, etc. are gathered, using the paper A4 as hand, and scaming “the fact of additional embezzlement of KRW 200,000 in relation to the defect construction work” (hereinafter the Defendant’s above statement was severely damaged).

Judgment

A. The claim for damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription if the injured party does not exercise his right for three years from the date when the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator (Article 766(1) of the Civil Act). The "date when the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" means the time when the injured party actually and specifically recognizes the requisite facts of the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the injured party is deemed to have actually and concretely recognized the requisite facts of the tort should be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of various objective circumstances in each individual case and circumstances where the claim for damages is practically possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Da2249, Jun. 28, 2002; 200Da11836, Jan. 19, 2001). In addition, the short-term criminal liability of the tort provided for in Article 766(1) of the Civil Act is not affected by the victim's statutory prescription or its relation.

B. (Supreme Court Decision 98Da34126 delivered on November 10, 1998).