[1] The meaning of and criteria for determining “the date when the injured party becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, and the burden of proving “the time when the injured party becomes aware of the damage” (=a person who asserts the benefit of the completion of

[2] The case holding that in a case where the residents of the Jeonnam-dong area including Gap et al. were killed without legitimate investigation due to the reasons that they were the “comforesan”, “comfore decentralization”, “comfore son”, “comfore son”, and their families at the time of the Korean War, and Eul et al. filed a lawsuit seeking damages against the State after receiving the truth-finding findings from the case of civilian sacrifice in the Jeonnam East East East East East East-dong area as the victim of the instant case at the time of the Korean War, the court held that the short-term extinctive prescription period for damages claim was not completed since the State had been notified of the fact-finding findings or it was not proven that Eul et al. knew of the fact-finding findings at the time of the fact-finding findings, and Eul et al. filed a lawsuit within three years from the time of the fact-finding findings since they knew of the said case only when they perused and copied the materials files at the time of the Korean War.

[1] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, Article 288 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, Articles 166(1), 750, 751, 752, and 766(1) of the Civil Act, Articles 26 and 28 of the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da17539 Decided July 12, 2013 (Gong2013Ha, 1454) Supreme Court Decision 2019Da220526 Decided March 26, 2020

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Yellow-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2056931 decided June 13, 2019

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that a claim for damages caused by a tort shall expire by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator.

The term "date when the victim or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" refers to the date when the victim or his/her legal representative actually and specifically perceived the damage and the perpetrator. The recognition is not sufficient only on the presumption or doubt of the damage occurrence but also on the fact that the harmful act constitutes a tort. In other words, the existence of the illegal harmful act, the occurrence of damage, and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage. In such cases, whether the victim, etc. is deemed to have actually and specifically perceived the requisite facts of the tort should be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of the various objective circumstances in each individual case and the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible, and the burden of proof on the time when the damage was known is to a person who asserts the profit due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da17539, Jul. 12, 2013; 2019Da222526, Mar. 26, 2020).

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed.

A. From the end of September 1950 to the end of March 1952, 1952, the residents of the Jeonnam-dong Branch, including Jeonsung-gun, were killed without due process of investigation in the state of armed conflicts and resistance due to the reason that they were “sudsan”, “competants”, “competants” and their family members by the police, etc. having jurisdiction over the Armed Forces, Jeonnam-dong area, Jeonnam-dong (hereinafter “the case of sacrifice by civilians in the area of Jeonnam-dong Branch”).

B. The bereaved family members of the victim including the Plaintiff 1 filed an application for ascertaining the truth with respect to the cases of the civilian sacrifice in the area south East East East-dong District, which was established pursuant to the Framework Act on the Settlement of History from February 7, 2006 to November 30, 2006 under the Framework Act on the Settlement of History for Truth and Reconciliation (hereinafter “The Committee for the Settlement of History”).

C. On June 24, 2008, the Korean War Settlement Commission rendered a truth-finding decision that confirmed 35 persons, including the Nonparty, who were the father of the Plaintiffs, as the victims of the civilian sacrifice case in the area of the Jeonnam-do (hereinafter “the truth-finding decision of this case”).

D. The truth-finding decision of this case contains the following purport: “The Nonparty was fluor of a school for the fluor of a school on July 1950, but the police station affiliated with the Bosong Police Station deemed the deceased to have sent the necessary signals to the her prompt escape. The Nonparty was released by the People’s Republic of Korea at the time of occupation of the Bosong-gun, but was fluor of the Bosong-gun Police Station on December 27, 1950.” The Non-Party was fluord to the Bosong-gun Police Station on December 27, 1950, and was fluored by the Bosong-gun, Bossung-gun, Bosong

E. There is no evidence to deem that the truth-finding decision of this case was notified to the Plaintiffs, or that the Plaintiffs knew of the contents of the truth-finding decision of this case.

F. On December 2016, 2016, the Plaintiffs perused and copied the data file of the case of civilian sacrifice in the area of the former Dong-dong, Seoul District Archive, and filed the instant lawsuit within three years thereafter.

3. As such, the statute of limitations has not been completed by filing the instant lawsuit before the expiration of the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years from the date the Plaintiffs became aware of the determination to ascertain the truth. Therefore, the lower court did not err in its judgment that rejected the short-term extinctive prescription defense, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence going against logical

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

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)