beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are dismissed, respectively.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that around March 2013, 2013, the Defendant assaulted the Plaintiff and inflicted injury on the Plaintiff and interfered with the Plaintiff’s business by avoiding disturbance, and that the Plaintiff sought compensation of KRW 10,00,000 for damages (i.e., KRW 166,50 for passive damages of KRW 20,000 for medical expenses (= KRW 4,833,500 for damages of KRW 4,833,500 for damages) and its delay damages.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 28, there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant was indicted with summary order of KRW 300,000 (Seoul District Court Decision 2018 Goju District Court Decision 201Da2052) around March 2018, and the above summary order became final and conclusive around that time. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above tort, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is defense that the plaintiff's right to claim damages has expired after the extinctive prescription expires.
A claim for damages due to a tort shall expire by prescription if it is not exercised within three years from the date on which the injured party or his/her legal representative becomes aware of such damage or
(1) Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A person shall know of the occurrence of the damage and the identity of the perpetrator” means the occurrence of the damage and the fact that the damage was caused by the tortfeasor’s tort, and the degree or amount of the damage does not need to be specifically known.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da2011, Apr. 14, 1992). The short-term prescription period for tort under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act is an inherent civil system established from a completely separate point of view from criminal prosecution, and thus, the prescription period is related.