[손해배상][집22(2)민,236;공1974.10.15.(498) 8031]
The starting point of calculating extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation for damages against the State of the purchaser who suffered losses due to the invalidity of distribution, although trading was made on distributed farmland.
Since the right to claim damages against the State due to the distribution of illegal farmland is complete after the lapse of the extinctive prescription counting from the date of tort, the starting point of the extinctive prescription for the right to claim damages against the State of the purchaser who suffered losses due to the invalidity of distribution shall be based on the date when registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of repayment is completed.
Article 750 of the Civil Code, Article 2 of the State Compensation Act, Article 766 of the Civil Code, Article 71 (2) of the Budget and Accounts Act
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Korea
Daegu High Court Decision 72Na879 delivered on November 29, 1973
The winning part of the original judgment shall be reversed.
The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the defendant shall be examined.
As to ground of appeal No. 1:
If a public official in charge of farmland distribution, as stated in the judgment of the court below, distributes state-owned farmland that has not been handed over from the Minister of Finance and Economy to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry, it constitutes a case where a public official committed an act in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes due to his negligence and by negligence, and if a public official believed the farmland distribution procedure invalid, such as the original farmland distribution procedure, and the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, and the plaintiffs who purchased the real estate, suffered damages due to the failure of the purchaser to acquire the ownership, there is a substantial causal relationship between the above illegal farmland distribution and the plaintiffs' damages. Thus, the plaintiffs can directly claim damages against the defendant country, and the purport of the above is different from the precedents of the party members (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da175, Apr. 20, 1971). Accordingly, we cannot accept the argument that only the person in charge of the farmland directly claims damages against the defendant and the plaintiffs who purchased the farmland directly.
As to ground of appeal No. 2
In this case, it should be interpreted that the extinctive prescription of the plaintiffs' right to claim compensation against the defendant should expire from the date when the defendant's unlawful act occurred. Thus, even if based on May 6, 1961 on the third real estate on the list of the original judgment attached to the original judgment on which the registration of transfer of ownership based on a series of farmland distribution procedures has been completed, the principal lawsuit was filed after the expiration of the five-year prescription period prescribed in the Budget and Accounts Act. Thus, the lower court determined that the period of extinctive prescription should be deemed to have been computed at the time when the plaintiffs purchased the real estate in this case, and that the period of extinctive prescription has not yet expired, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of the extinctive prescription period, and therefore, we reverse the original judgment with merit.
Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)