TITLE	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2012Da202819 Decided May 16, 2013¡¼Damages¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] In a case where the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (hereinafter ¡°TRC¡±) ruled an applicant as a victim of the incident under investigation and the surviving family filed a civil lawsuit against the State, the measure to be taken by the court when it cannot affirm the TRC¡¯s fact-finding result due to the lack of admissibility of the TRC¡¯s report or contradictions in its contents [2] In a case where an obligor, by his/her apparent attitude, convinced an obligee into believing that the obligor would not use the running of the statute of limitations as an excuse, and where the obligee exercised his/her rights within a reasonable period during which the obligor could have anticipated the exercise of rights, whether the obligor is permitted to allege the running of the statute of limitations (negative) [3] Standard for determining whether an obligee exercised his/her rights within a reasonable period after an obligor appeared convincing that he/she would not benefit from the running of the statute of limitations; scope of ¡°reasonable period¡± in a claim for damages caused by tort [4] Limits to the trial court¡¯s discretion in assessing the compensation amount for non-pecuniary loss caused by tort, and factors to be considered when assessing compensation for victims of Korean War crimes who underwent a truth-finding process pursuant to the Framework Act on Settling the Past History for Truth and Reconciliation

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2013Du3207 Decided May 23, 2013 ¡¼Revocation of Fuel Subsidy Redemption Disposition¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2011Da24555, 24562 Decided May 16, 2013¡¼Damages¡½