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 reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: (a) at the bottom of the second judgment of the court of first instance, the phrase “as of January 29, 2010” and “as of October 29, 2010,” and (b) at the bottom of the second judgment of the court of first instance as “as of October 29, 2010,” and (c) as of the assertion added by the Defendant to this court, it is identical to the reasons for the first judgment

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion falls under a claim for damages arising from a tort, and the statute of limitations should apply to the claim for damages arising from a tort. As such, the statute of limitations expired since the three-year short-term extinctive prescription period under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act has lapsed from the date of the instant agreement, since the instant lawsuit was filed.

B. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting date of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort, provides that "the date when the perpetrator becomes aware of the damage or the tortfeasor's illegal act" means the time when the damage or the tortfeasor becomes aware of the damage or the tortfeasor's illegal act, so it is also required to know that there is a causal relationship between the harmful act and the

(1) In the event that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant in this case is a claim for damages arising from a tort, as alleged by the Defendant, and the extinctive prescription is terminated upon the lapse of three years from the date on which the Plaintiff became aware of the damage and the perpetrator pursuant to Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the fact that the Plaintiff had actually and specifically recognized the elements of the tort at the time of the instant agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the contract date of this case is illegal.