Plaintiff (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

March 21, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2005Gahap9352 Delivered on July 20, 2005

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 50 million won with 5% interest per annum from June 12, 2002 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 490,000,000 won with 5% per annum from June 12, 2002 to the date of a final judgment, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

Defendant: as set forth in paragraph (1).

1. The reasoning of this court concerning the judgment on whether the plaintiff's assertion was based and the defendant's claim on February 2 and the defendant's claim on March 3 are the same as the reasons in the judgment of the court of first instance. [However, in the case of the above non-party 3-c. 3-c., the manipulation of evidence by hearing and pressure against the plaintiff 1, and in the case of the defendant 63645 in the last part of the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's East District Public Prosecutor's Office (other than the plaintiff 1, in the case of the non-party 1 in 1999-h. 63645 in which the prosecutor did not prosecute the non-party 2 in return for the non-party 2's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution's non-prosecution action, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and even if the prosecutor found the evidence, this does not constitute an illegal prosecution."

4. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

Article 76(1) of the Civil Act, which provides the starting date of the claim for damages due to an illegal act, "date on which the injured party becomes aware of the damage and of the identity of the perpetrator" means the time when the injured party actually and specifically knows the requisite facts of the illegal act, such as the occurrence of damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and the occurrence of the harmful act. Whether the injured party, etc. recognizes the requisite facts of the illegal act in reality and in detail, it can be reasonably recognized in consideration of various objective circumstances in individual cases and the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da2249, Jun. 28, 2002). Thus, even if the emergency arrest and its objection against the plaintiff were illegal from the time when the warrant of detention was issued, it is reasonable to view that the above illegal circumstance of the defendant's claim for damages against the owner of the design right had been rejected by the court of first instance and the prosecutor's office, who is the public official belonging to the defendant, and that the above judgment of the court of first instance was unlawful.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed in its entirety without any reasonable ground, and the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance that has different conclusions is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part is dismissed. The defendant's appeal is justified, and the plaintiff's appeal is accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-dae (Presiding Judge)