A. The meaning of the extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort is that the damage and the perpetrator should not be found.

(b) Time when it is deemed that the injury or ex post facto gift has caused unexpected damage at the time of tort or that the injury or ex post facto loss has increased outside the anticipated, new or expanded damage or loss has been known (when such cause or event is found);

A. In the extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort, the fact that the damage was caused and the fact that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor’s illegal act is known, and the degree and amount of the damage should not be specifically known.

B. In ordinary cases, it shall be deemed that the injured party was aware of the injury when the injured party suffered the injury. However, in the event that there was a new or unexpected loss at the time of tort due to legacy, etc., or where damage was increased beyond the anticipated loss, it shall be deemed that the injured party was aware of the new or expanded damage only when it was proved that such cause

Article 766(1) of the Civil Act

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da2011 Decided April 14, 1992 (Gong1992,1598) (Gong1992,1598). Supreme Court Decision 90Da8152 Decided January 12, 1990 (Gong1990,457) (Gong1991,1242) Decided March 22, 1991 (Gong1991,242) (Gong1989,223). Supreme Court Decision 91Da41880 Decided May 22, 192 (Gong1992,1969)

Plaintiff 1 and 8 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na4721 delivered on August 14, 1992

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs' attorney and defendant's attorney are also examined.

As to the statute of limitations

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff 1 suffered from the accident of this case on September 28, 1986 and received treatment from both sides of the accident requiring medical treatment for about 32 weeks, pressure from 1st century, and post-control, which was conducted on October 20, 1986 by using crypology surgery, dypology surgery by crypology crypology, vesatum crypitis by crypulphal crym cryption, vesatum cryposis by cryposis, vesatum crymosis by cryposis, etc. on March 5, 197, the court below found that the above crypology was not an incidental crypology, but a new crypology crypology and vespology, such as urology, and that the above crypology was not an incidental crypology or urology.

The right to claim damages due to a tort ceases to exist when it is not exercised for three years from the date when the victim or his legal representative became aware of the damage or the tortfeasor, and the damage or the tortfeasor's awareness of the occurrence of the damage and that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor's illegal act, and the degree or amount of the damage does not have to be specifically known, in ordinary cases, the injured victim was aware of the damage when he suffered the injury. However, in case where the damage was incurred due to the subsequent legacy, etc. or the damage was expanded, it shall be deemed that the injured victim was aware of the new or expanded damage only when it was proved that such a cause was proved.

As duly determined by the court below, the plaintiff 1 was treated under the diagnosis of both sides of the accident in this case on Sep. 28, 1986, pressure 1st century, and post-control. On Oct. 20, 1986, the court below, however, did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to extinctive prescription of the plaintiffs' damage claim against the part of this case, including extinctive prescription of 1987, i.e., extinctive prescription of 1987, i., e., e., anti-m., anti-pathy and anti-pathy, i.e., re-extinctive prescription, i., re-extinctive prescription, i.e., re-extinctive prescription, i., anti-pathy and anti-pathy, i.e., anti-pathy, and i., i., e., re-extinctive prescription from 1986.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if the urology of urology was proved to have been around October 24, 1987, as stated in the decision that was not anticipated at the time of the accident of this case, the plaintiffs became aware of the damage incurred therefrom. Thus, the decision of the court below that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages on this part should run from the time of the accident is proper, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the extinctive prescription as alleged by the defendant.

Both appeals on this point are without merit.

As to the negligence or comparative negligence

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that it is reasonable to 2/3 of the victim's fault ratio in the occurrence of the accident of this case by comparing and comparing the negligence as stated in the judgment of both parties, and it is reasonable to find that the court below's fact-finding and judgment on this point are correct, and it is reasonable to find that the fact-finding and judgment of the court below on this point are correct, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to comparative negligence with the rules of evidence, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to comparative negligence.

There is also no reason to discuss both appeals on this point.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.