All
| TITLE | Supreme Court Decision 2019Da297137 Decided August 19, 2021 【Damages (Etc.)】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] In the case of the right to claim for damages arising from an unlawful act that has a time interval between the harmful act and damage caused thereby, the meaning of “the time when the unlawful act was committed,” which becomes the starting point of computing the long-term extinctive prescription, and who is responsible for the proof regarding “the time when the objective and concrete damage is caused” as referred to in Article 766(2) of the Civil Act (held: a person who claims the benefit of extinctive prescription) [2] Where post-traumatic stress disorder is caused by sexual assault, matters that the court should consider in recognizing that damage resulting therefrom has practically occurred [3] In the case where: Party A, who had been sexually assaulted by Party B, a tennis coach, in elementary school, ran into Party B 15 years later; Party A, who was psychologically traumatized as the painful memory of being sexually assaulted was recalled, lost her memory for three days and then, frequently experiencing nightmares, anxiety, anger, etc., was diagnosed with “post-traumatic stress disorder”; and Party A claimed damages against Party B, the case holding that viewing that damage such as post-traumatic stress disorder arising from an unlawful act has practically occurred only when Party A got the diagnosis of a professional that posttraumatic stress disorder resulted from the sexual assault, and extinctive prescription runs from then on in accordance with Article 766(2) of the Civil Act is reasonable | |
