1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be filed respectively.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court and the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion are as follows: (a) relevant parts of the “1. Basic Facts” and “a summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion” are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance court; and (b) thus, (c)

2. Whether extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages against the plaintiff expires

A. The Plaintiff’s negligence, as an implementer of an urban planning project, registered the instant land in the public book as larger than the actual area, and the Defendant Corporation, by negligence, caused the Plaintiff to incur damage to the Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff to incur more than KRW 20,609,732, out of the instant land due to joint tort, on the ground that the Plaintiff was negligent in surveying the partition of the instant land before subdivision, and thereby, caused the Plaintiff to incur more loss than KRW 67/82, out of the instant land. Even if the Defendants acknowledged the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages against the Defendants, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages was extinguished by prescription, as the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 11, 2015, when three years have passed since the Plaintiff was aware of the said damage and the perpetrator, and five or ten years have passed since

B. 1) Whether the statute of limitations for a claim for damages due to a tort has expired refers to the time when the victim, etc. reasonably and specifically, recognized the facts constituting the elements of the tort, such as the occurrence of damage, the existence of an illegal harmful act, and proximate causal relation between the occurrence of the harmful act and the damage. Whether the victim, etc. should be deemed to have actually and specifically recognized the facts constituting the elements of the tort should be reasonably acknowledged by taking into account the various objective circumstances of the individual case and taking into account the situation in which the claim for damages is practically possible (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da6579, Jan. 18, 2008; 2005Da65579, Jan. 18, 2009).