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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the ground of appeal No. 1 in light of the evidence admitted by the lower court, the lower court’s finding that there was a causal relationship between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s 3-4 emergency signboard escape certificate (hereinafter “instant emergency escape certificate”) on the grounds as stated in its reasoning is justifiable and acceptable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of violation of logical and empirical rules,

2. The claim for damages caused by a tort as to the second ground for appeal ceases to exist by prescription, unless it is exercised within three years from the date the victim or his/her legal representative becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator

In this context, the term “date when the victim or his legal representative becomes aware of the damage” refers to the actual and specific perception of the damage, and the presumption or doubt of the damage is not sufficient. In ordinary cases, the victim of the injury was aware of the damage when he suffered the injury. However, in a case where the damage was incurred at the time of tort due to post-treatment, etc. or where the damage was expanded as expected, it shall be deemed that the victim was aware of the new or extended damage occurred at the time of tort, and as to the newly occurring or expanded damage, the prescription period is in progress from the time when such a new or expanded damage became known (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da42797, Sept. 14, 2001; 2009Da9105, Apr. 29, 2010). The lower court acknowledged that the Plaintiff was diagnosed at the hospital 204 No. 344, Apr. 24, 2004 as the result of the examination at the hospital of this case.