1. When purchased illegally distributed farmland, the starting point of reckoning a claim for damages against the State;

2. Where illegally distributed farmland has been purchased, the scope of claims for damages against the State;

1. If the Defendant State filed a lawsuit for cancellation of each registration against Nonparty A and those who completed the registration of cancellation thereof on the ground that the farmland distribution to Nonparty A, who is a multiple distribution, is null and void, and won and the final and conclusive judgment was rendered, the starting point of the statute of limitations for the Plaintiff’s right to claim damages against the Defendant shall run from the time when the above judgment became final and conclusive, and the victim was aware of the damage and the perpetrator at that time.

2. As above, where the registration of the Plaintiff’s name was cancelled upon the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, etc. in the lawsuit claiming cancellation against the Plaintiff, the amount of damages incurred due to the Plaintiff’s occupational tort committed by public officials employed by the Defendant is the amount

Articles 393, 763, and 766 of the Civil Code, Article 71 of the Budget and Accounts Act

Seoul High Court Decision 77Da1894,1895 decided March 14, 1978 (Article 71(1) of the Budget and Accounts Act; Article 77Da2423 decided November 24, 198 (Article 763(2) of the Civil Act; Article 763(2)68 of the Civil Act; Article 11739 house 26 and 202 of the Civil Act; 107Da1071 decided December 26, 1979 (Article 71(1) of the Budget and Accounts Act; Article 71(1)13 of the Budget and Accounts Act; Article 1290 house 27Da238, No. 6276 decided Nov. 24, 1981; Article 81Da1071 decided Nov. 27, 1971

Kim Young-young

Korea

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 30,210,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from August 19, 1983 to the full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes, and the one's own defendant and the other shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 159,000,000 won with an amount of 25 percent per annum from the next day of the service of the gusheshes to the next day of the full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

1. Judgment on the main safety defense;

Although the defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case was not made through the procedure of pre-determination under the State Compensation Act, it cannot be dismissed as an illegal lawsuit, it is obvious that the fact of the cause of the tort occurred prior to the enforcement of the current State Compensation Act, and therefore, it is not necessary to make a decision by the compensation council in accordance with the former State Compensation Act. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is groundless.

2. Judgment on the merits

In full view of the purport of oral proceedings, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5 (each judgment), Gap evidence Nos. 7-2 (2) and three evidence Nos. 7-3 (Verification Protocol), which had no dispute over the establishment of the plaintiff. The above land was divided into 1,328 square meters as part of the above 145 square meters, and the above land was divided into 1,68 square meters. The above land was purchased on February 15, 1942 as a building site for the Republic of Korea, and the registration of transfer was cancelled on the land No. 97. The judgment of the court below was reversed on the ground that the non-party Nos. 1 and 97 was no longer a part of the above 1,328 square meters, and that the non-party No. 9 was no longer a part of the court below's judgment of first instance on the land of this case for the same 7th anniversary of the fact that the non-party No. 2 transferred the ownership of the land to the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry at the same time. 16th.

Therefore, the plaintiff was unable to acquire ownership of the land of this case and suffered damages, which is caused by negligence in the performance of duties that distributed the land of this case without confirming whether the non-party's non-party name, who is the above public official in charge of farmland distribution is the land subject to farmland distribution. Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the above damages suffered by the plaintiff as the employer of the above public official, unless there are special circumstances.

However, the plaintiff's right to claim compensation of this case was terminated after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period from February 8, 1961, since the non-party mining area illegally distributed the land in this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the front of the Dong, or from February 8, 1961, the ten-year period under Article 766 (2) of the Civil Act or the five-year period under Article 766 (1) of the Budget and Accounts Act, counting from February 197, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff et al. for the cancellation registration of the land in this case, and from July 22, 1983, the period of three-year period under Article 766 (1) of the same Act and the five-year period under Article 71 of the Budget and Accounts Act, which had already been expired before July 22, 1983, the right to claim compensation against the State due to unlawful disposal of real property by the non-party mining area is clearly cancelled the registration of the victim's name, and it is reasonable to view that the period of the plaintiff 2's claim of this case.

Then, the defendant asserts that the claim for damages of this case against the defendant is not dismissed, since the plaintiff had already filed a lawsuit against the non-party joint owner of the land of this case against the non-party joint owner of the land of this case and won a favorable judgment. However, even according to the defendant's argument itself, the above lawsuit against the non-party and the lawsuit against the defendant are different between the above non-party and the lawsuit against the defendant. Thus, the defendant's above assertion

Therefore, as to the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of damages to be paid by the Defendant is KRW 159,00,000, which is equivalent to the market price of the instant land when the lawsuit claiming cancellation against the Plaintiff et al. became final and conclusive, but the damages incurred by the Plaintiff’s occupational tort committed by the above public official Nonparty, who is the Defendant’s employee, due to the Plaintiff’s non-party’s non-party’s non-party’s occupational tort, could not be acquired of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s damages in the instant case are the amount equivalent to the purchase price paid by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff believed to be able to acquire the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the market price at the time the lawsuit claiming cancellation

However, according to the statement of No. 3-1 (Land Sales Contract) and the testimony of the above witness, the plaintiff can be found to have purchased the land of this case from the non-party Samsan Co., Ltd. on November 11, 1975, in price of KRW 30,210,000, and there is no other counter-proof. Thus, the amount of damages suffered by the plaintiff is equivalent to the above amount.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is entitled to delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum from August 19, 1983 to the full payment date, which is obvious from the record that the above 30,210,000 won and the above claim for damages after the occurrence of the above claim for damages (the plaintiff claims for delay damages at the rate of 25% per annum from August 19, 1983 to the full payment date (the plaintiff claims for delay damages at the rate of 25% per annum from the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.), but there is a reason to pay damages to the defendant, since it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of damages, this part of the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognition scope of the plaintiff's claim for this case, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed, and the payment of damages shall be decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 92

Judges J. J. J. J. J. J. S. Park Nam-J.