logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.03.19 2014나2017037
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s additional determination as to the matters alleged in the trial, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. As the police officers and soldiers of the Plaintiff’s assertion kills the Deceased illegally without any justifiable reason, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff’s damage pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, and the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription constitutes abuse of rights.

B. Determination 1) The obligor’s exercise of the right of defense based on the statute of limitations is subject to the control of the principle of good faith and the prohibition of abuse of rights, which are the major principles of our Civil Act. As such, where the obligor has made it impossible or significantly difficult for the obligee to exercise his right or interruption of prescription prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations, has committed an act that makes the obligee believe such a measure is unnecessary, or there was an objective obstacle for the obligee not to exercise his right, or where the obligor has made the right holder trust as such, or where there exist special circumstances, such as making the obligee refuse to perform the obligation significantly unfair or unfair due to the need to protect the obligee, and other special circumstances such as other creditors under the same conditions receive the repayment of the obligation, etc., the obligor’s assertion for the completion of the statute of limitations is not permissible as an abuse of rights against the principle of good faith (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da37565, Mar. 14, 2013).

arrow