beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point for calculating the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, etc. has actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements of the tort, such as the occurrence of damages, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relationship between the harmful act and the occurrence of damages. Whether the victim, etc. is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements of the tort should be reasonably acknowledged 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.). Here, Article 766(1) of the Civil Act’s phrase “a person who knows a victim” is not a matter of legal assessment as to whether there is a matter of awareness of facts or a matter of legal assessment as to facts.
(2) The court below determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages against the Defendant was completed prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, on May 2, 2014, since it is apparent that the claim for damages in this case was made objectively through an application for change of the claim and its cause of claim, based on the evidence of employment. The court below determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages had already been completed prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, on May 14, 2010, when the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant as to each real estate in this case was made on May 14, 2010, by becoming aware of the fact that the ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed by the breach of trust between the co-defendants in the court below prior to the remand of the case, and the Defendant.
In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is justifiable.