[1] The extinctive prescription period for the right to claim damages acquired by the winner, in case where a person obligated to enter into a certain contract with the winner as an advertisement for an outstanding prize phenomenon fails to perform it

[2] The case holding that where a winner of an excellent prize advertisement has the right to claim the conclusion of a basic and working design contract based on the plan design determined as excellent work against the advertiser, the statute of limitations for the right to claim damages due to non-performance of the above contract's obligation to enter into shall apply for a short term of three years

[3] The starting point of counting the right to claim damages due to default

[1] In a case where a person who is an advertisement for outstanding phenomena, is obligated to enter into a certain contract with an elected person, thereby failing to enter into a contract nationality, and the other party claims compensation for damages caused by nonperformance of such obligation to enter into a contract, the right to claim compensation for damages has a close relationship with the right to claim the performance of the contract to be acquired in the event that the contract is concluded, and the right to claim compensation for damages has a substantial and economical relationship. Therefore, the extinctive prescription period applicable to the right

[2] The case holding that where the winner of an excellent prize advertisement has the right to claim the conclusion of the basic and working design contract based on the planning design determined as excellent work against the advertiser, the right to claim the performance of the contract to be acquired in the event of the conclusion of the contract based on such right to claim the performance of the contract is "a claim against the person engaged in the design" and the short-term extinctive prescription of three years under Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code is applied to the above basic and working design contract, the statute of limitations of the right to claim the performance of the right to claim the performance

[3] The extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages due to nonperformance shall run from the time of default.

[1] Articles 163 subparag. 3 and 390 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 163 subparag. 3 and 390 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 166 and 390 of the Civil Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 72Da2600 delivered on October 10, 1973 (Gong1973, 7549), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu22513 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong1991, 49), Supreme Court Decision 94Da54269 delivered on June 30, 195 (Gong195Ha, 2561)

Plaintiff

1. As to the establishment of a foundation, the establishment of a foundation (Attorney Lee Young-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 99Da63169 delivered on January 25, 2002

Seoul High Court Decision 2002Na10525 delivered on September 6, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages

In a case where a person who is an advertisement for outstanding prize advertising and has an obligation to conclude a certain contract violates his/her obligation and thereby failing to conclude the contract, thereby claiming compensation for damages caused by nonperformance of such obligation, the right to demand performance under the contract to be acquired in the event of the conclusion of the contract and the substantial and economical relationship is formed. As such, the period of extinctive prescription applicable to the right to claim compensation for damages to be acquired when the contract is concluded, shall be the period of extinctive prescription.

According to the records, the "basic and working design right", which is the original claim held by the plaintiff who is the winner of an excellent prize advertisement against the defendant who is the advertiser, is the right to file a claim for the conclusion of the basic and working design contract with the defendant who is the winner, based on the plan design determined as excellent. The right to claim performance under the contract to be acquired in the event of conclusion of the contract based on such right to claim is "a claim for the construction of the person engaged in the design" and the three-year short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act is applied to this regard. Thus, the statute of limitations for the right to claim damages due to nonperformance of the obligation to conclude the basic

In the same purport, the court below's decision that the period of extinctive prescription of the claim for damages of this case is three years is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to short-term extinctive prescription as otherwise alleged in the

2. As to the starting date of the extinctive prescription

The extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages due to nonperformance shall commence from the time of default (see Supreme Court Decisions 72Da2600, Oct. 10, 1973; 90Meu2513, Nov. 9, 1990; 94Da54269, Jun. 30, 1995, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below unilaterally notified the plaintiff on November 11, 1993 that if the plaintiff did not accept the church bill by November 15, 1993, it would be deemed that the plaintiff would not have any intention to conclude the design contract for the construction work of this case, and that the plaintiff would not have any intention to conclude the design contract for the construction work of this case. The court below determined that the defendant's presentation that the plaintiff had already expressed his intention to refuse the acceptance within three days, and notified the plaintiff that the plaintiff would not have any intention to conclude the design contract for the construction work of this case unless the plaintiff accepts the church bill by November 11, 1993, and that the plaintiff would not have any intention to refuse the acceptance. Thus, the court below determined that it is clear that the plaintiff would not have any intention to conclude the design contract for the construction work of this case, and therefore, it should be deemed that the plaintiff's response or notification should be made from the next day after 199.

Examining the relevant evidence in light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts due to erroneous determination of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)