logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가단56262
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On April 1981, the Plaintiff was suffering from injury, such as being exposed to drinking faces from the Defendant who was a high school student in the same high school at the sand president of the Incheon Songdoo Park, and thereby, the injury was reduced by the bones and the degree of weight damaged.

B. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 4 million for operating expenses for the above injury, KRW 15 million for lost earnings, KRW 20 million for consolation money, KRW 39 million for damages.

2. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was taken from the Defendant around April 1981, and the Plaintiff was taken a food face.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the injury was caused by the impairment of the bones or the degree of proportion of the bones, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no reason to consider the remainder of the claim of the plaintiff.

B. Domestic affairs, around April 1981, the Plaintiff suffered injury from the impairment of the bones or the degree of weight of the bones by taking the face of drinking from the Defendant.

Even if ten years have passed from then, the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted as a mother because the ten-year statute of limitations has expired.

[The "date when a tort was committed", which serves as the starting point for the statute of limitations under Article 766 (2) of the Civil Act, means the date when the result of the tort occurred, not the date when the harmful act was committed, but the date when the damage actually occurred. However, if the damage actually occurred, the statute of limitations runs from the time when it can be deemed that the damage was actually caused by the harmful act, regardless of whether the victim knew or could have anticipated the occurrence of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71881, May 13, 2005). In this case, the damage occurred in April 1981, and thus, the statute of limitations runs from that time.

arrow