All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. “The date when the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the injured party actually and specifically recognized the elements of the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the injured party, etc. is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requirements of the tort should be reasonably acknowledged by taking into account various objective

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Meu18, Jul. 24, 1998; 2006Da30440, Apr. 24, 2008). The phrase “a person who knows a victim of interest” in this context is not a matter of legal assessment as to whether there is a matter of awareness about facts or whether there is a matter of legal assessment as to facts.

(2) On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) on the grounds stated in its reasoning, Plaintiff A suffered damages due to the violation of the Defendant’s suitability principle and duty to explain; and (b) on the ground that it actually and specifically recognized that such violation constitutes tort, the right to claim damages against the Defendant for the tort of this case against the Defendant shall be deemed to have been extinguished from January 23, 2009, each of the delivery dates of this case; and (c) on the ground that the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on March 23, 2012 prior to the lapse of four years after the filing date of the lawsuit against the Defendant of this case, the lower court determined that the statute of limitations for the claim for damages against the Defendant of this case ought to be expired, since the lawsuit against the Defendant of this case had already been filed on March 3, 2013, which had been earlier than the lapse of four years thereafter.

3. Examining the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is made.