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

However, around the end of 2006, the Defendant established the Whitedo Cultural Foundation (former name, the Cultural Heritage Preservation Center, the incorporated foundation prior to the change), and did not take measures to unfairly succeed to employment only for the Plaintiff, which constitutes a tort.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a compensation for damages, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the annual salary equivalent to the Plaintiff’s annual salary and consolation money equivalent to the same amount, KRW 43.2 million, and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the plaintiff's "head of the Gun to which the defendant was the defendant in the complaint of this case is an administrative agency, which is an agency of a local government, and is a party to an administrative litigation. However, the plaintiff cannot become a party to a civil lawsuit due to lack of legal capacity

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. Even if the Plaintiff selected the “Grant group” as the “head of grant Gun” due to the legal site, so long as the Plaintiff’s claim for damages caused by the illegal act of a local government is aimed at providing money, the period of extinctive prescription of five years under Article 82 of the Local Finance Act, notwithstanding Article 766(2) of the Civil Act, is applied (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da203090, May 29, 2014). Even if the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the starting point of reckoning the extinctive prescription period is around January 207, where the grant Gun did not succeed

However, it is clear that the lawsuit of this case was filed five years after it was filed, and in light of this point, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. As such, the instant lawsuit is unlawful and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.