1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Since 1996, the Plaintiff occupied Yongsan-gu Seoul (hereinafter the instant land) land owned by the Republic of Korea without permission, and the Defendant imposed indemnity on the Plaintiff in accordance with the State Property Act.

[1] The date of the notice of imposition of the period of possession of the previous amount of overdue interest (existing due date for payment) of the indemnity / [1] The fact that the indemnity / [23,912,690, 264, 260, 366, 950, 850 from January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2007 ( October 10, 2008) / [2] The fact that the indemnity / [2] the indemnity 23,912, 690, 12, 264, 260, 36, 176, 950 from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009, including the purport that the indemnity / [305, 207, 208, /378, 208, / 57, 2008, /378

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim that the above portion of the Plaintiff’s obligation [1] portion of the Plaintiff’s indemnity [2] (hereinafter “instant indemnity”) is no longer valid since the extinctive prescription has expired on October 10, 2013 after the lapse of five years from October 11, 2008, the day following the due date of payment of the indemnity, and thus, the extinctive prescription of five years under Article 96(1) of the National Finance Act shall apply to both the right to impose indemnity, the right to collect indemnity, and the right to collect indemnity. Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant’s right to collect indemnity of this case has expired on October 1, 2013 after the due date of payment, which was five years from October 11, 2008.

I would like to say.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted or waived, it is possible to approve an obligation as a ground for waiver of the benefit of extinctive prescription in an implied manner since there is no restriction on the method of indication. In a case where multiple claims relations with the same object are established due to continuous transactions between the same parties, the obligor shall be deemed to have impliedly approved an obligation remaining, barring any special circumstances, even if he/she did not designate a specific obligation after the extinctive prescription and performs part of the obligation without designating it.