(b) Whether the period of extinctive prescription prescribed in the Local Finance Act applies to the right to claim damages that a private person has against the local government due to the impossibility of performing the non-money obligation

B. Article 69 of the Local Finance Act provides that the period of extinctive prescription shall be five years for all the rights of local governments or rights to local governments, regardless of whether the cause of payment of money is public law or private law, unless otherwise provided for by other Acts. Thus, even if the original obligation owed by the local government on behalf of a private person is not for the purpose of paying money, and the five-year extinctive prescription period prescribed by the Local Finance Act is not applied to cases where the original obligation owed by the local government on behalf of the private person, and thus, once the obligation of the local government on account of the reason attributable to the local government, the private person, the creditor, can claim damages against the local government, which is the debtor, and the five-year extinctive prescription period

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) The fact that the performance of an obligation is impossible is not simply an absolute and physical impossibility, but a case where the obligee cannot expect the realization of the obligor’s performance in light of the empirical rules or transactional norms in the social life.

The court below held that the above non-party 1 and the non-party 1 who completed the river of this case completed the supplementary construction work for the newly constructed river of this case, donated the land to the country, and the defendant agreed to grant the land owned by the country created by the construction of this case to the non-party 1 within the scope of expenses borne by the Dong for the execution of the construction work, and pursuant to the agreement, the defendant transferred the above non-party 1's land to the plaintiff who was transferred the above non-party 1's status according to the agreement for the construction cost to the non-party 1's use of the land which was constructed by the management agency around September 9, 1983. However, the court below held that the non-party 1 was unable to perform the obligation to transfer the ownership to the plaintiff because it was not disused by the country with respect to the land which is not the construction department, and there was no error of law

(2) According to Article 69 of the Local Finance Act, rights of local governments or rights to local governments with the purpose of paying money, which are rights to local governments and to local governments, unless otherwise provided for in other Acts, the extinctive prescription is completed unless they are exercised for five years. The purport of this Article is not to determine the cause of the payment of money, whether it is a public law or private law, but to determine the extinctive prescription period for all the rights of local governments or rights to such local governments or organizations, except as otherwise provided for in other Acts and subordinate statutes (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da1048, Dec. 13, 197).

Meanwhile, even if the original obligation owed by a local government to a private person is not for the purpose of paying money, but for the purpose of paying money, the period of extinctive prescription under the above Local Finance Act is not for the purpose of applying the five-year extinctive prescription period under the above Local Finance Act, once the original obligation becomes impossible due to a cause attributable to the local government, the private person, who is the creditor, can claim damages against the local government, which is the debtor, and as long as such claim for damages aims

In this regard, it is justifiable for the court below to apply the 5-year statute of limitations to the claim for damages of this case for the purpose of paying money. The argument that the 10-year statute of limitations under the Civil Act shall apply to cases where monetary claims against local governments have occurred in transactions under private law, or where the claim for damages against local governments has occurred due to impossibility of performing the non-money obligations of local governments is merely an independent opinion.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)