beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion is erroneous in concluding the petition on the ground that the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office of the defendant's branch office's case No. 2000 petition279 on August 20, 200, which was related to the case of No. 2000 case and No. 7920 on March 29, 199, was terminated by a disposition of no suspicion. Since the defendant's appellate court's appellate court's appellate court's decision of provisional seizure did not have a debt in the real estate provisional seizure case, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused to the plaintiff due to the above tort.
B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription has already expired, and that the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed since there is no evidence that the defendant committed a tort.
2. In light of the judgment, Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides, “The claim for damages caused by a tort shall be extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage and of the identity of the perpetrator.” Article 766(2) of the same Act provides, “The same shall apply when ten years have elapsed from the date when the tort was committed.”
However, in this case, the date of the closure of the disposition in the case No. 20005279 of the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office alleged by the plaintiff is August 20, 200, and the date of the provisional attachment order in the case of provisional seizure against real estate in the Suwon District Court 98Kadan3282 is July 1, 1998, and it is evident in the record that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on September 29, 2016, which was 10 years after the date of the termination of the disposition or the date of the provisional attachment decision of the above provisional attachment. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the damage claim caused by the tort alleged by the plaintiff had already been completed and extinguished before the lawsuit in this case was filed.
Therefore, it is true.