The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that affirmed the judgment of the second instance that revoked the judgment of the civil re-determination (Seoul High Court Decision 68Da23, Dec. 6, 1989) (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na96, Oct. 17, 2013) on the ground that the plaintiffs, who were the deceased J or inheritors of the defendant's series of illegal acts, exercised the distribution right after the final judgment of re-determination of the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na96, Oct. 17, 2013), on the ground that the plaintiffs were not otherwise assessed in the judgment of the civil re-determination, even if the plaintiffs were omitted in the judgment of the civil re-determination, the parties to the plaintiff (the appointed parties) and the appointed parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff's first instance judgment").

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on claim for damages arising from a tort or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion

2. On the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages was filed after the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period stipulated in Article 96(2) and (1) of the former Budget and Accounts Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Finance Act, Act No. 8050, Oct. 4, 2006) from December 31, 1998 as stipulated in Article 3 of the Addenda to the former Farmland Act, but the Defendant’s claim for damages constituted abuse of rights and thus, cannot be allowed

In so doing, the lower court erred by applying the provision that became invalid by the Constitutional Court Decision 2014Hun-Ba148, August 30, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da233686, Nov. 14, 2019). However, the lower court’s rejection of the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is justifiable.