beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 6,450,717 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 10, 2011 to November 29, 2016.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of the claim (compensation for damage caused by a tort or return of unjust enrichment) the Plaintiff alleged as the cause of the claim in the attached Form No. 1 and No. 2, and the facts of the changed cause of the claim, which are alleged as the cause of the claim in the instant case, may be acknowledged either by dispute between the parties
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 61,859,589,589 and damages for delay caused by the tort or the return of unjust enrichment, unless there are special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription
A. First, the defendant's defense that the damage claim based on the plaintiff's tort has expired.
Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that a claim for damages caused by a tort shall expire if it is not exercised for three years from the date when the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator.
The "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 recognizes the damage and the perpetrator, and the recognition is not sufficient only by the presumption or awareness of the damage occurrence but also by the fact that the harmful act constitutes a tort. In other words, the recognition of the requisite fact of the tort and the existence of the illegal harmful act, the occurrence of damage, and the causal relationship between the harmful act and the damage are known.
However, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, at the latest, was able to claim damages against the Defendant on February 15, 2013 when the judgment of conviction became final and conclusive in a criminal case against the Defendant (Yanju District Court Decision 2012 high-class 1760).
As such, the extinctive prescription is in progress from this point of time, and on March 10, 2016, after three years from this point of time, the lawsuit in this case is brought.