The extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort

The period of extinctive prescription under Article 766(1) of the Civil Code runs from the date when the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and there is no relation with whether the criminal judgment against the perpetrator became final and conclusive.

Article 766 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da597 delivered on April 14, 1970

Plaintiff

Defendant

Incheon District Court Decision 85Na25 delivered on July 11, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The extinctive prescription period under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act runs from the date when the victim became aware of the damage and the perpetrator, and it is not related to whether or not a criminal judgment against the perpetrator has become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da597 delivered on April 14, 1970). Therefore, there is no reason to argue that the judgment of the court below is an attacking on the ground that the period of extinctive prescription should proceed from the time when the criminal judgment against the perpetrator became final and conclusive, and such reason does not fall under any of the cases provided for in Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act applicable to this case, and thus, it cannot

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju