A. The meaning of extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort that the damage and the perpetrator should not be known.

(b) Time to consider that a person was aware of a new or expanded loss in the event that the loss unforeseeable at the time of the tort due to the after-the-counter legacy occurred or the loss was increased beyond the anticipated one (=when such cause has been found)

A. A claim for damages due to a tort is extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised by the victim or his/her legal representative for three years from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the damage or of the identity of the tortfeasor. Here, the damage or the identity of the tortfeasor is known that the damage or the identity of the tortfeasor was caused by the tort of the tortfeasor, and it is not necessary to specifically know the extent or amount of the damage

B. In ordinary cases, the victim of the injury should be deemed to have known of the damage when he suffered the injury. However, in a case where the damage was incurred at all unforeseeable at the time of the tort due to the subsequent legacy or where the damage was increased, it should be deemed that the victim was aware of the new or expanded damage at the time of existence of such cause.

(b)Article 766(1) of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3271 Decided September 26, 1989 (Gong1989, 1560) (Gong1990, 457), 90Da8152 Decided March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1242) (Gong1991, 14152). Supreme Court Decision 86Da2150 Decided December 23, 1986 (Gong1981, 14152) (Gong1987, 226) (Gong1987, 226) Decided December 27, 1988

Plaintiff

Hyundai Construction Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na10932 delivered on October 31, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Since the supplemental appellate brief is not timely filed, it shall be deemed to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff's damage from the defendant company's mold was caused by the injury on June 10, 1982 and returned to the Republic of Korea on August 1 of the same year from the time when he was working at the site of the redevelopment project in the Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Ba, and on August 3 of the same year, "the Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad Ma" was diagnosed and treated as the treatment, and the plaintiff's damage was caused by the defendant's tort on August 21, 1985 to January 20, 1986 after the prescription period of 19 years from the time of the plaintiff's damage claim to the same 9th 16th Mad Mad Bad Mad Mad 198.

A claim for damages due to a tort shall be extinguished by prescription unless it is exercised by the victim or his/her legal representative for three years from the date on which he/she becomes aware of the damage or the identity of the tortfeasor. Here, it is clear that the damage or the identity of the tortfeasor was caused by the tort and that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor, and it is not necessary to know in detail the degree or amount of

Therefore, in ordinary cases, the injured party shall be deemed to have known of the damages when the injured party suffered the injury. However, in case where there was a new damage which could not have been predicted at the time of tort due to the subsequent legacy, or where the damages were increased as expected to have been caused by the subsequent legacy, it shall be deemed that he was aware of the new or expanded damages at the time of existence of such cause. According to the records, the damages sought by the plaintiff in this case are not new damages that could not have been predicted above, and if the facts were acknowledged by the court below, the plaintiff shall be deemed to have known of the fact that the plaintiff had caused the damages in this case due to the defendant's tort, at least at the latest.

The precedent of the theory of lawsuit is not appropriate in this case, and it cannot be recognized that the defendant renounced the benefit of prescription even after examining the record. Therefore, there is no reason to argue in the opposite position.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)