The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the right to impose and collect indemnity under Article 72(1) and Article 73(2) of the State Property Act is a separate right that differs from the civil right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, the right to impose and collect indemnity was exercised.

Thus, the extinctive prescription of the civil claim for restitution of unjust enrichment cannot be interrupted.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da3576 Decided September 4, 2014; 2014Da44932 Decided October 30, 2014, etc.). Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription on the ground that the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment was interrupted by giving notice of imposition of indemnity based on the State Property Act against the Defendant on February 22, 2008 and May 24, 2011, on the ground that the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment had ceased, contrary to the aforementioned legal doctrine.

Since such determination by the court below is in violation of the opinion expressed in the above Supreme Court decision, the court below erred in its decision contrary to the Supreme Court decision under Article 3 subparagraph 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, and the ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

On the other hand, the remaining grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal since they do not fall under the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.