When the chief of a tax office exercises the right to claim compensation for damages against the State damaged by misunderstanding the forest land, the disposal authority of which belongs only to the Administrator of the Korea Forest Service, starting point of calculating extinctive prescription

In a case where the plaintiffs purchased forest land devolving upon the head of a tax office having no authority to dispose of and sold it to others, and the subsequent purchaser bears the warranty liability as a seller due to the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in succession with the lawsuit of the state, the existence and scope of the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the state only when the above cancellation judgment becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, the plaintiffs should be deemed to have known the damages only

Article 766 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da886 decided Feb. 8, 1977 (Kakad1449, Supreme Court Decision 25 ① Civil 96Nu594 decided Feb. 8, 197, Supreme Court Decision 76Da2008 decided Jun. 7, 197 (Supreme Court Decision 1155DaKadd 11515, Supreme Court Decision 25 ② Civil 104 decided Feb. 5, 195, Court Gazette 563No 1013 decided Jun. 7, 197)

Lee Chang-chul, Lee & Lee, Lee-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (77Gahap275 decided) in the first instance trial

1. Of the original judgment, the part regarding the order of the Plaintiff’s loss in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff Lee Ho-lim the amount of 7,922,81 won per annum from June 12, 1974 to the full payment of the amount of 2,640,937 won and the amount of 5% per annum for each of the above amounts.

2. The defendant's appeal against both the plaintiff and the plaintiff is dismissed.

3. All costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On the ground of the death of the non-party to the lawsuit of this case, the parties to the lawsuit filed an amendment to the purport of the claim at the time of the trial and filed a judgment identical to that stated in the Disposition 1, 3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 25,726,50 won and the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from June 12, 1974 to the date of completion of the lawsuit.

The judgment that the litigation costs should be borne by the defendant was sought.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The court of first and second instances sought a judgment that all the costs of lawsuit should be borne by the plaintiffs.

We consider the claim for damages due to the plaintiffs' primary tort.

According to the above evidence Nos. 1 to 4 (Certified Copy of 1 to 4), the above evidence Nos. 8-1 to 7, and the purport of evidence Nos. 10 (each judgment), each of the lands listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as "the land") shall be reverted to the State of Japan at the time of August 15, 197, and each of the above land Nos. 1 to 5 (the above real estate Nos. 1 to 6) shall be removed from the above real estate Nos. 1 to 3, the above real estate Nos. 1 to 5 (the above real estate No. 1 to 1 to 7). The above real estate Nos. 1 to 1 to 3, the above real estate Nos. 1 to 97 shall be removed from the above real estate No. 1 to 1 to 3, 1964, and the above real estate No. 2 to 1 to 96, each of the above real estate No. 1 to 7.

Thus, the parties to the lawsuit in the order of Lee Jong-soo and the plaintiffs Yang Jae-chul, each of whom was erroneous as the general state property under their jurisdiction, are liable for damages incurred by the negligence of the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office, which caused the damages equivalent to the above amount of damages. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to compensate for each of the above damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the tort in the execution of his duties under the State Compensation Act by the head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Tax Office, who is a public official under his jurisdiction, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

Since the above right to claim damages against the defendant is money claim against the defendant, the prescription period of five years under Article 71 (2) of the Budget and Accounts Act, counting from the date of sale from the above date of the above right to the defendant's tort, expires, and since the above right to claim damages from September 27, 1963, which was the date of purchase of the above land, was not exercised at all within five years from January 17, 1964, this right to claim damages against the defendant was extinguished by prescription. Since each right to claim damages against the defendant, which was recognized above, was caused by the fact that the plaintiffs cannot perform their right to claim damages against the non-party 1 because the above right to claim damages from the non-party 6th day of 7th day of 7th day of 1976th day of 1976th day of 197, it is clear that the above right to claim damages from the defendant 176th day of 197th day of 197.

Next, the defendant, at the time of the sale of each of the lands in this case, argued to the effect that the part of the plaintiffs' claims in excess of the price is unfair, since the defendant agreed to compensate the buyer for damages within the limit of the purchase price and agreed to compensate for the damages in advance. However, since the document No. 1 (a copy of the sales contract) alone is insufficient to recognize the agreement on the scheduled amount of damages in the defendant's book, and there is no other supporting document, the defendant's defense cannot be accepted as without merit.

If so, the defendant is the money calculated by dividing the damages of 21,127,500 won in the order of the above Lee Jae-eng, Yang Jae-ok, Dong-dong, Lee Jin-Jin, Lee Jin-Jin, etc., the lawsuits of the above Lee Chang-eng, as well as 25,640,937 won, and the damages of 21,127,500 won, which were acknowledged as above, according to their legal shares in inheritance, and as the plaintiffs claim against Lee Jin-J, Lee Ho-eng, Lee In-J, Lee In-J, Lee In-J, Lee In-J, Lee, Lee In-J, Lee In-J, Lee In-J, Lee, Lee In-J, Lee, and Lee In-J, the above damages of 1,25,726,50 won, and the damages of 5% per annum from June 12, 1974 to the above money, and thus, the defendant's amendment of the judgment below is justified and without merit.

Judges Lee Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)