Where any damage occurs or has been extended due to a testamentary gift after death, the date when the damage was known as the initial date of extinctive prescription

The injured victim should be deemed to have known of the damages when the injured victim was injured, but in case where there was a new or unexpected damage that could not have been predicted at the time of tort due to the aftermath, etc., or where the damage was expanded outside the expected damage, it shall be deemed that the injured victim was aware of the new or expanded damage only when the cause is proved. Therefore, the time of claim for damages shall be the date

Article 766(1) of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Coal Corporation (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1796 delivered on August 13, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to the injury of Plaintiff 1 caused by the instant mine accident, the lower court determined that Plaintiff 1 was subject to treatment on June 24, 1976 as of the date of the accident under the diagnosis of the name of 25 days’ alleys, chills, and chills, which were conducted treatment, from the hospital attached to the Habba under the Defendant’s control of the Defendant, on the day of the accident, and that there was a diversary symptoms in towing and Gyeongdo, and that the aggregate of the aggregate of the aggregates on the upper part of the vertbags in spine is not formed, the treatment period of Plaintiff 1 was extended from October 11, 1976 to November 17, 197, and the treatment period of Plaintiff 1 was extended until February 17, 1977. The lower court, based on the report of the above Habagsium attached to the Defendant’s Habagbag and the re-employment of the said Plaintiff 1.

In general, the meaning that the victim or his legal representative should know that the harmful act was illegal and that the damage was caused by the occurrence of the damage. In ordinary cases, the injured victim should have known the damage when the injured victim suffered the injury. However, in case where there was a new loss not foreseeable at the time of the tort due to post-treatment or where there was an expansion of damage beyond the anticipated one, it shall be deemed that the injured victim was aware of the new or expanded damage only when it was proved that there was such a cause. Thus, as in the above judgment of the court below, the court below did not find that the above plaintiff suffered a loss due to the above 19 days' diagnosis that the expected treatment period was 25 days, and that the plaintiff was completely cured on February 17, 1977 under the direction of the defendant's reemployment (No evidence 12-2 of the evidence No. 12-2 of the court below stated that dismissal was limited within 15 days, and it cannot be viewed that the above plaintiff was 19 days's permanent injury or 17 days's injury.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)