All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, “the day on which the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of counting the short-term extinctive prescription of the claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, etc. reasonably and specifically, knows the facts requiring the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, the occurrence of the harmful act and the proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the damage. Whether the victim, etc., was aware of the facts requiring the tort in reality and in detail should be reasonably acknowledged by taking into account

(2) The court below rejected the plaintiffs' defense of extinctive prescription, on the following grounds: (a) based on the adopted evidence, found facts as stated in its reasoning; and (b) the defendant (only "the counter defendant; hereinafter "the defendant") knew about the illegal acts of the plaintiff (the counter defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") around June 17, 2008 or October 18, 2008; and (c) the defendant knew about the defendant's damages caused by the illegal acts of the plaintiff (the counter defendant; hereinafter "the plaintiff") and the criminal judgment attached to the notice of administrative disposition against the plaintiff B around January 13, 2012.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against

2. As to the third ground for appeal, a property damage caused by a tort is unlawful.