1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if each of the evidence (each of evidence Nos. 5-1 through 4, evidence No. 6, and evidence No. 7, evidence No. 7, and witness E of this court) submitted in addition to this court is presented to the court of first instance (a sex relationship between the defendant and the plaintiff was established, but there is insufficient evidence as to whether the defendant committed sexual assault by force by assaulting and threatening the plaintiff at the time).

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following "preliminary judgment", and therefore, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance.

2. Preliminary Judgment

A. Article 766(1) of the Civil Act provides that a claim for damages due to a tort shall be extinguished by prescription if the injured party or his/her legal representative fails to exercise the claim for damages for three years from the date when the injured party or the perpetrator becomes aware of such damage

In addition, 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, means the time when the existence of the damage, the existence of the illegal harmful act, and the proximate causal relation exists between the harmful act and the occurrence of the damage, has been actually and specifically recognized as to the facts requiring the tort.

Furthermore, when the victim et al. actually and specifically perceived the elements of the tort should be reasonably determined by taking into account various objective circumstances in individual cases and taking into account the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da7577 Decided May 27, 2010, etc.). B.

In the case of this case, as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendant around April 2010 to the plaintiff.