[1] The meaning of "the day on which the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator" under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages caused by a tort, and the method to determine when the victim actually and specifically

[2] In a case where Eul corporation, a lessee of a building, filed a lawsuit seeking damages against Eul, a lessor, following the occurrence of a fire on the building Gap's own, and the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, since the first instance court rendered a judgment that acknowledged Gap's liability for damages caused by non-performance of repair obligation under a lease agreement against other lessee Gap, Eul corporation's claim for damages was extinguished by the statute of limitations on the ground that Eul company specifically recognized Eul's liability for damages caused by the cause of a fire and the defect in the installation and preservation of a structure, the case holding that the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though there is room to regard Eul company as having actually and specifically recognized the elements of tort, such as the occurrence of illegal damages caused by a fire, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between a harmful act and a damage, only when the judgment of the court of final appeal became final

[1] “The date when the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim actually and specifically recognizes the elements of the tort, such as the occurrence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the victim actually and specifically recognizes the facts of the requirements of the tort, should be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of various objective circumstances in individual cases

[2] Where Company B, a lessee of a building, filed a lawsuit seeking damages against Company B, a lessor, after the occurrence of a fire in the building that was owned by Company A, and the lower court determined that Company B’s claim for damages was extinguished by prescription since the first instance judgment, which acknowledged Company B’s liability for damages caused by nonperformance of repair obligation under a lease agreement, became final and conclusive until the judgment of the first instance became final and conclusive to acknowledge Company A’s liability for damages arising from the cause of fire and the defect in the establishment and preservation of a structure, the case holding that the appellate court and the appellate court of the relevant case asserted that the fire was not caused by a defect in the structure, and that Company B’s claim for damages was not based on the premise that there was no specific cause of the fire, such as the cause of the fire, the point of extinguishment, the lessor’s nonperformance of repair obligation, and the possibility of exemption, and that Company C, an insurance company which concluded an insurance contract with the Plaintiff, had been declared to the representative director of Company B, but the judgment of the first instance court rendered a judgment on the actual cause of the fire and damages.

[1] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2006Da30440 Decided April 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 770) Supreme Court Decision 201Da54686 Decided November 10, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 2549) Supreme Court Decision 2018Da215664 Decided July 24, 2018

Jsung Integrated Pipelines Co., Ltd. (Law Firm C&K, Attorneys Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Marin, Attorneys Lee Jae-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2019Na56647 decided July 23, 2019

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that, around the time of the first instance judgment of the case where the lessee, 103 of the instant building, filed against the Defendant for damages for nonperformance of the repair obligation under a lease agreement (hereinafter “related case”), the Plaintiff specifically recognized the cause of the instant fire and the facts constituting the requirements for liability for damages arising from defects in the installation and preservation of structures, etc., and accepted the Defendant’s defense that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages was extinguished by the statute of limitations, as the instant lawsuit was received more than three years thereafter, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for damages.

2. However, it is difficult to accept such a determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

A. “The day on which the victim becomes aware of the damage and the perpetrator” under Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which serves as the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, practically and specifically, recognizes the facts requiring the tort, such as the occurrence of damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage. Whether the victim actually and specifically recognizes the facts requiring the tort should be reasonably recognized by taking into account various objective circumstances in each individual case and taking into account the circumstances in which the claim for damages is practically possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da30440, Apr. 24, 2008; 201Da54686, Nov. 10, 2011; 2018Da215664, Jul. 24, 2018).

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following circumstances.

1) Although the first instance judgment in the relevant case, which acknowledged the Defendant’s liability for damages regarding the instant fire, was sentenced on December 11, 2014, the Defendant filed an appeal and a final appeal, and the judgment became final and conclusive on April 15, 2016. The Defendant asserted that the instant fire was not caused by the defect of a structure in the appellate trial and the final appeal at the above appellate trial and the final appeal court, and continuously disputed the cause of the instant fire, the point of extinguishment, the Defendant’s nonperformance of the duty of repair by the lessor, and the possibility of exemption.

2) Meanwhile, the Mesz fire and marine insurance company, which concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant, filed a lawsuit claiming reimbursement against the Nonparty, etc.’s representative director (Seoul Central District Court 2013Da237636). While the lawsuit was pending, the first instance judgment of the relevant case was rendered while the lawsuit was pending, but it was estimated for a considerable period to wait for the result of the relevant case due to the Defendant’s appeal and final appeal, and the judgment of the court of final appeal against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, on July 12, 2016, was rendered.

C. In full view of the above circumstances based on the legal principles as seen earlier, expert knowledge is necessary to determine whether the Plaintiff’s representative director was an illegal act, such as the cause of the instant fire, the point of birth, the subject of responsibility, etc., and in light of the circumstance that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Nonparty regarding the claim for reimbursement was pending, the progress of the lawsuit claiming reimbursement, etc., the Plaintiff’s position cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff, from the standpoint of the first instance court, actually and specifically recognized the existence of the requirements for liability for damages arising from the cause of the instant fire and the defect in the installation and preservation of the structure at the time of rendering the judgment of the first instance in the relevant case. However, there is room to deem that the Plaintiff, only when the judgment of the relevant case became final and conclusive, has actually and specifically

Nevertheless, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, concluded that the Plaintiff actually and specifically recognized the occurrence of damage at the time of the first instance judgment in the relevant case, and concluded that the extinctive prescription expired. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the starting point of the short-term extinctive prescription for damage liability arising from tort, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The allegation in the grounds of appeal

3. The lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jo Hee-de (Presiding Justice)