logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.01 2018나52623
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. additional determination” to the Plaintiff C by this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has already expired since the instant lawsuit was filed on November 21, 2016, when three years have elapsed since the Defendant had known of the damage and the perpetrator at the above time, by posting false facts by telephone to the female airport office of the Plaintiff C working for the Plaintiff C.

On the other hand, the starting point of the extinctive prescription is the starting point of calculating the period of extinctive prescription, which falls under the requirement of the occurrence of the legal effect called the extinction of the obligation, and it constitutes specific facts constituting the legal requirement of the extinctive prescription defense, and thus,

(1) Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The date on which the injured party becomes aware of the injured party or the perpetrator,” which serves as the starting point for the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the injured party actually and specifically recognizes the requisite facts of the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the existence of proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage.

(2) The Defendant asserted that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation for damages due to the Plaintiff’s tort has expired, and only asserted that the Plaintiff C, which was the initial date of the extinctive prescription, was the one of the tort in 2013, and did not specifically state any assertion as to at any time and time, and that Plaintiff C was the one of the tort as at the time of the occurrence of the tort as alleged by the Defendant.

arrow