[1] The meaning of "date when he becomes aware of the damage and the identity of the perpetrator" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Code and the criteria for its determination

[2] The case concerning the starting point of the statute of limitations for the claim for damages caused by the prosecutor's illegal restraint

[1] "The date when the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Code, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the injured party has reasonably and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements for the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the harmful act and the damage. Whether the injured party is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements for the tort should be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of various objective circumstances in individual cases and situations in which

[2] The case holding that the extinctive prescription of a public prosecutor's right to claim compensation for damages caused by an illegal detention shall not run from the time of the illegal detention until the criminal trial on the crime under detention becomes final and conclusive

[1] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da28780 delivered on December 26, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 408), Supreme Court Decision 97Meu18 delivered on July 24, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2234 delivered on September 3, 199), Supreme Court Decision 98Da30735 delivered on September 3, 199

Plaintiff (Law Firm General Law Office, Attorney Park Won-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na10228 delivered on March 31, 2000

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

1. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to the initial date of extinctive prescription

The court below held that since Defendant 1 received a detention warrant from April 22, 1992 when Defendant 1 was urgently detained and executed on April 23, 1992 by the court, the detention against the plaintiff was illegal confinement, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff actually recognized that the detention prior to the issuance of the detention warrant against the above defendant was a tort, and that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case after the lapse of three years thereafter, the court below held that the plaintiff's right to claim damages expired.

Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting date of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, "date on which the injured party becomes aware of the damage and of the identity of the perpetrator" means the time when the injured party has actually and specifically recognized the facts requiring 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. has actually and specifically recognized the facts requiring the tort, should be reasonably recognized in consideration of various objective circumstances in individual cases and circumstances practically enabling the claim for damages (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da30735 delivered on September 3, 199, etc.).

According to the records, the plaintiff should be deemed to have known that he was not notified of the facts constituting the crime and the reason for detention when he was detained, and that he was infringed upon the right to assistance of counsel by refusing to call to his counsel. Therefore, the plaintiff's extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for damages shall run from that time, and as alleged by the plaintiff, there is no circumstance that the plaintiff could not proceed with the extinctive prescription until the criminal trial on the facts constituting a crime under detention is finalized.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal, based on the general public, should not proceed until there is no additional uncertainty of the legal evaluation at the time of tort and there is an official decision, such as the court's trial, etc., or in special circumstances where it is impossible to expect the parties to exercise their right to claim damages until the relevant judgment becomes final and conclusive, all of them in this case are inappropriate to be invoked.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's claim for damages has expired is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the starting point of extinctive prescription

2. As to the violation of the rules of evidence

The court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge the argument that the above defendant and his subordinate employees assault the plaintiff at the time of emergency arrest, and that the police officers ordered the plaintiff to take custody of the plaintiff to the police station and not to contact the plaintiff's family members. The court below's decision is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)