[1] The meaning of the date when it became known that a tort, which serves as the starting point of the statute of limitations, is committed in the damage claim based on a tort at time between the harmful act and the damage.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which calculated the starting point of the extinctive prescription based on the time of the accident on the ground that the legal representative of the victim was aware of the realized damages in case where the victim, who was an infant of 2 years old at the time of the accident, was under the medical examination of the doctor in charge during the first-year course of the high school, was able to measure the remaining and the degree of the harm caused by the alteration of the legatium

[1] In the damage claim based on a tort at time between the harmful act and the actual damage caused by the harmful act, the date of knowing the tort, which is the starting point of the extinctive prescription, is insufficient only to the extent that there was awareness of the damage which was temporarily hidden in a conceptual and dynamic state, and the date of knowing that such damage was realized thereafter.

[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which calculated the starting point of extinctive prescription based on the time of the accident, on the ground that the legal representative of the victim was clearly aware of the actual damage, if the victim was at the time of the accident that he was at the age of 2, and the victim was at the age of 18 and was at the age of 18 until the age of 18 since the growth of the growth of the growth of the growth of the leg part of the leg, and the body of the above leg was altered, if the victim was at the time of the medical examination of the doctor in charge during the first year of the high school and was able to estimate the remaining part and the degree thereof, etc.

[1] Articles 750, 766(1), and 166(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 750, 766(1), and 166(1) of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu25168 delivered on January 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 457) Supreme Court Decision 92Da29924 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 431) Supreme Court Decision 97Da36613 delivered on May 8, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1578)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Jong-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Lee Han-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 98Na13471 delivered on January 19, 2000

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

In a claim for damages arising from a tort at an interval of time between the harmful act and the actual occurrence of the damage, the date of knowing the tort, which is the starting point of the extinctive prescription, is insufficient only to the extent that there was awareness of the damage that was temporarily hidden in a conceptual and dynamic state, and it means the date of knowing that such damage was realized thereafter (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da29924, Dec. 8, 1992).

The court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning, and acknowledged facts. At the time of the accident of this case, the defendant was 2 years old, and it was hard to expect the defendant's side of the victim and the perpetrator, and the doctor in charge to take care of the remaining part of the hospital after receiving an explanation from the defendant's remaining part of the medical treatment at the time of the accident of this case, as long as the above 18 years old old and the bones of the defendant ceased to grow, until 18 years old and the alteration of the above part would be fixed. Further, it is reasonable to take proper measures for treatment, as well as to take proper measures for treatment after the alteration of the above part of the hospital, and to maximize the effect of recovery of the above disability by receiving the defendant's claim for damages from the defendant's 9 years old and the above alteration of the part of the body of this case, as well as the degree of future damages caused by the above 19 years old and the damage itself was uncertain, and it was difficult for the defendant to take care of the remaining part of the hospital at the time of this case after the accident of this case.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the records based on the above legal principles, we affirm the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below as just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the starting point of the statute of limitations as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)