[1] The meaning of "the day on which the person 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 statute of limitations for claim for damages

[2] In order to recognize “the victim’s awareness of the perpetrator” in the employer’s responsibility, whether the victim should be aware of the fact sufficient to determine that the tort was committed by the general public in relation to the performance of the employer’s business (affirmative)

[1] Article 766(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 756 and 766(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da23879 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2628), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da30440 Delivered on April 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 770) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Da32500 Delivered on November 14, 1989 (Gong190, 31)

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Defendant 1 and two others (Law Firm Han River, Attorneys Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2011Na420 decided August 31, 2011

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Article 766(1) of the Civil Act, which serves as the starting point for calculating the short-term extinctive prescription of a claim for damages due to a tort, means the time when the victim, etc., actually and specifically, knows the requisite facts of 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, etc., is deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts of the requisite facts of the tort should be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of various objective circumstances in individual cases and situations in which the claim for damages is practically possible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da30440, Apr. 24, 2008). Here, Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that “the date when the victim, etc., becomes aware of the identity of the victim” is not a matter of legal assessment of facts (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da23879, Aug. 27, 1993).

In addition, the employer's liability for damages arises from the fact that a person in the employment relationship with the employer causes damage to a third party with respect to the employer's performance of business, and in this case, the victim's awareness of the identity of the perpetrator is recognized in addition to recognizing the fact that the victim was in employment relationship between the employer and the illegal person (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu32500, Nov. 14, 1989).

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ claim for the completion of extinctive prescription on the grounds that it is difficult to view that the Plaintiffs had already known the fact that gambling was the perpetrator at the time they acquired ownership of each multi-household of this case.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violating the law of logic and experience and violating the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

Therefore, 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 Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)