Where the conclusion of a loan contract for State property or the payment of occupation fees can be deemed as the expression of intent to waive the prescription benefit.

Although it is difficult to deem that the State made an active declaration of intent to waive the benefit of the completion of the acquisition by prescription solely on the basis of the fact that the State and the State have occupied State property after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and concluded the loan agreement and paid the loan fee, if such loan agreement was concluded several times without any defect, or if the loan agreement was concluded on several occasions without simply concluding the loan agreement and paid the fee as compensation, it would be reasonable to deem that such loan agreement or the payment of compensation would have made an active declaration of intention to recognize the State’s ownership and waive the benefit of

Articles 184 and 245(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Da2130 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2627), Supreme Court Decision 93Da4918 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2601), Supreme Court Decision 94Da32511 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 77), Supreme Court Decision 94Da60301 delivered on September 29, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3610)

Legal Professionals (Attorney Noh Jeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea

Supreme Court Decision 96Da31499 Delivered on June 13, 1997

Busan District Court Decision 97Na8059 delivered on October 24, 1997

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

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

On the first ground for appeal

The court below's decision that the land ownership of this case belongs to the defendant is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the Farmland Reform Act, such as the internal appeal. The ground of appeal pointing this out is not acceptable.

On the second ground for appeal

Although it is difficult to view that the State and the State made an active declaration of intent to waive the benefit from the completion of the acquisition by prescription on the sole basis of the fact that the acquisition by possession of State property and the payment of loan charges has been made after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, if such loan contract was concluded several times without any defect, or if it was made without simply concluding a loan contract and paid as compensation in the name of compensation, it would be reasonable to view that the State made an active declaration of intent to recognize the ownership of the State and waive the benefit from the completion of the acquisition by prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da2130, Aug. 27, 1993; 93Da4918, Sept. 9, 1994; 94Da32511, Nov. 22, 1994; 94Da60301, Sept. 29, 195; 2000Da319639, Jun. 13, 1997).

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.

Justices Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)