logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나20872
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.

2. Demanding and expanding the costs of appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this court's explanation are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the submission or addition under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts used or added;

A. On the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, “The judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive at that time” was added.

(b) column 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance provides that “each entry (including each number) in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as follows: “No. 2-1 to 3 of the evidence No. 2, No. 3-1 to 3 of the evidence No. 3, and No. 5 of the evidence No. 5”

(c) Forms 3, 11 and 16 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

The right to claim compensation for damages due to a aftermath or tort ceases to exist due to the statute of limitations for three years from the date when the victim or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage or the tortfeasor's identity. Here, the damage or the tortfeasor's identity is aware of the occurrence of the damage and that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor's tort. In ordinary cases, since the victim did not have any specific knowledge of the degree or amount of the damage, it shall be deemed that he was aware of the damage when he suffered the damage. However, in cases where there was a new damage which was unexpected at the time of tort due to the aftermath or legacy, etc. or where the damage was expanded, it shall be deemed that he had been aware of the new or expanded damage only when such cause was proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da42583, Dec. 8, 1992). According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff sought compensation for damages and the tortfeasor's identity on September 21, 2012.

arrow