5035 Judgment

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

A. On May 4, 1978, in the process of converting the area on the public official’s cadastral record into a horizontal distance (m) from the area on the cadastral record of May 4, 1978, the area was recorded as 3,367 square meters by the negligence of the public official in charge, while the actual area was 2,367 square meters in Busan-ri O-△△△△△ (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Plaintiff was awarded ten parcels of land including the instant land in the 10th auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the auction procedure of this case”) with the Gwangju District Court Sejong District Court 2000 Kapo-si 13* voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the auction procedure of this case”) and acquired the ownership by fully paying 45,000,000 won on April 10, 201.

C. Meanwhile, upon finding that there was an error in the area on the cadastral record of the instant land, the area was corrected ex officio from 3,367 square meters to 2,367 square meters, and the head of Pyeongtaek-gun notified the Plaintiff of the fact on August 6, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

In the auction procedure of this case where the amount of the above land was reduced by the negligence of the public official in charge belonging to the defendant, who is the competent authority managing the cadastral record of the land of this case, and the bid price of the above land is high, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of the bid price of the above land 4,323,00 won and the delay damages equivalent to the area excessive as damages

3. Determination,

(a) Whether liability for damages arises;

According to the above facts, although excessive entry in the cadastral record was made and the area entered in the public record was reduced to 1,000 meters due to correction of the cadastral record, the actual amount of the decrease in the public record was not recognized as to the land of this case, and the actual amount of the decrease in the public record existed only in the public record by mistake of procedural failure, and the above correction does not prevent the Plaintiff from actually losing the land or acquiring the land to have been acquired as a matter of course as to the area reduced in the public record (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da34702, Nov. 15, 1996).

Furthermore, in the auction procedure of this case as alleged by the plaintiff, even if an appraiser under the control of the land of this case, which is the object of auction, established the minimum auction price higher than the actual auction price by multiplying the unit area of the above land by the area on the public record, barring any special circumstance to deem that the acquisition of the plaintiff's ownership through the above auction procedure constitutes the quantity designated sale and purchase (generally, in a voluntary auction for the exercise of security right, it is merely a method for the auction court to indicate the area of contribution, such as the land, which is the object of auction, by specifying and indicating the land, and even if the appraiser used the price calculated by multiplying the area on the public record on the per unit area by the area on the per unit area in determining the minimum auction price, it is nothing more than a room to determine the price of the whole land. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be said that the above minimum auction price has been reduced to the extent that the above minimum auction price has not been paid as a result of the decrease in the amount of damages.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have caused any damage to the Plaintiff due to the negligence of the public official in charge of the entry in the above cadastral record, and the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the occurrence of damage is without merit

B. Whether extinctive prescription has expired (a assumptive judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of extinctive prescription)

A claim for damages against a local government under the former part of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act is extinguished by prescription if it is not exercised during the five-year period under Article 82(2) and (1) of the Local Finance Act from the end of the tort (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da23692, Feb. 11, 1997; 2004Da33469, May 29, 2008). In such cases, the statute of limitations runs from "when it is deemed that the victim was aware of, or could have anticipated of, the result of the damage" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71881, May 13, 2005).

In this case claiming that the Plaintiff suffered losses from additional payment of the amount equivalent to the area that has been reduced in the public cadastral book in the auction procedure of this case due to the erroneous entry of the area of the land in the public official’s negligence in the public cadastral book of this case, even if such losses are recognized, the starting point of the extinctive prescription shall be April 10, 2001, which can be deemed that the Plaintiff would have actually suffered losses by paying the price, and it is evident that the lawsuit of this case was filed on February 27, 2015 with the lapse of five years thereafter.

Therefore, even if the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant was established, the extinctive prescription has already expired.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Park Sung-nam

Park Young-young