Ministry of Justice shall invoke the benefit of extinctive prescription

Even if there is no recourse by the parties under the new civil law, the obligation is naturally extinguished as a fact of the completion of prescription, and it is only impossible to render a judgment against its will unless the party who receives benefit of extinctive prescription raises a defense to the effect that it shall benefit from

Article 162 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da2445 delivered on January 31, 1966, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1089 Delivered on August 30, 1968

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 78Na515 delivered on October 6, 1978

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment on the Plaintiff’s Grounds of Appeal

According to Article 10 (1) of the Addenda to the new Civil Act, even if a person who purchased real estate before the enforcement of the new Civil Act acquires ownership, he/she shall lose ownership unless he/she registers by December 31, 1965. However, barring any special circumstance, the buyer's right to claim the transfer of ownership due to the cause shall be subject to extinctive prescription from January 1, 1966, barring any special circumstance, and under the new Civil Act, his/her obligation shall naturally cease to exist as a matter of course (see Supreme Court Decision 65Da2445, Jan. 31, 1966). However, in principle of the principle of pleading, unless a person entitled to benefit of extinctive prescription does not waive it and objects to a defense that he/she shall be entitled to the benefit of the extinction of prescription by setting up against the claimant of the right in the actual lawsuit, and the defendant may defend against the purport that he/she shall be entitled to the benefit of the expiration of extinctive prescription as a party who would discharge his/her direct obligation upon the expiration of extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The 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 Han-jin (Presiding Justice)