1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim expanded and reduced in this court, shall be modified as follows:

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

[Supplementary part] The 11th judgment of the court of first instance, the 13th through 24th of the 11th judgment, shall be followed as follows.

The defendant's assertion 1) The summary of the defendant's argument is as follows: ① when the plaintiff was issued a return disposition of construction waste disposal business application, the illegality of the disposition, damages, and the perpetrator was known at the time of the rejection disposition of this case, and finally, on April 6, 2009, the defendant was finally aware of the illegality of the disposition, damages, and the perpetrator at the time of the rejection disposition of this case; thus, on January 17, 2014, which was the date of the lawsuit of this case, the period of prescription has expired and expired; ② the defendant's tort occurred as a continuous tort, and the damage was sustained every five years from the date of the lawsuit of this case until the date of the lawsuit of this case, and the lawsuit of this case had already been filed on January 17, 2014, which was five years after the date of the lawsuit of this case, and thus the prescription has expired.

2) “The day on which the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act to determine the short-term extinctive prescription refers to the time when the injured party has actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements of the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the injured party, etc. was deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements of the tort should be determined reasonably by taking into account various objective circumstances in individual cases and taking into account the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da33469, May 29, 2008; 24 May 24, 20