(a) Effect of write-off of claims made by the Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation without approval from the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry;

(b) The period of extinctive prescription of monetary claims against farmland improvement cooperatives;

A. In order for the Korea Agricultural Promotion Corporation or the Korea Agricultural Promotion Corporation’s alliance to dispose of its claim for loss, the disposal of the claim for loss without the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry is null and void.

B. The extinctive prescription period of monetary claims against farmland improvement cooperatives is five years.

Article 9 of the Addenda to the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; Article 22 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; Article 10 of the Addenda to the Land Improvement Project Act; Article 53 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; Article 71 and Article 73 of the Budget and Accounts Act;

Supreme Court Decision 65Da992 delivered on July 20, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1707DaDa1707 delivered on July 20, 196, Supreme Court Decision 13Du2038 delivered on February 28, 1978

Korea Agriculture Promotion Corporation

Maritime Farmland Improvement Association

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (75Gahap347)

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 501,500 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from August 17, 1975 to the full payment.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

Provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (2).

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,175,671 and the amount at the rate of 5 percent per annum from August 17, 1975 to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (1).

The same shall apply to the order.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On January 12, 1970, the plaintiff Corporation and the defendantnam Association established under the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act; the plaintiff Corporation merged the rights and duties of the Association of Land Improvement which is a telegraph; the defendant Association shall not conflict with each other; the defendant Association shall pay the evidence No. 1-2-6 (Peremptory Notice No. 1-6 (Peremptory Notice No. 1-6) Gap evidence No. 1-2-1-7 (Peremptory Notice No. 1-6 (Peremptory Notice No. 6), and it shall be recognized that the authenticity is completed by the testimony of the non-party No. 1-3-1 (C. 1-6), 2 (C. 1-6), 5-1-6 (C. 9), 2 (C. 1-6), 2-1-7 (C. 9-6), 9-1-7 (C. 1-6), 9-7 (C. 9-1-6), 9-7 (C. 1-6)-6 (C.

Defendant 1’s attorney asserted that each testimony of Nonparty 4, the lower court, the lower court, and the witness Nonparty 5, who correspond thereto, should be considered as having been adjusted by taking into account the rent actually used, while he occupied the evidence leased by the land improvement cooperative in wartime during the agreed period, but did not actually use the evidence due to friendly relations, and should be deducted from the rent amounting to KRW 3,175,671 when converting the said period into the rent. As such, there is no other evidence to believe that the testimony of Nonparty 4, the lower court, and the witness Nonparty 5, the lower court

In light of the purport of the testimony of the witness and the parties' arguments, the defendant-appellant asserted that the plaintiff-appellant exempted the amount of 891,252 won from the above fee on December 29, 1969 from the disposition of deficits of 1,154,35 won on June 18, 1971. Thus, the plaintiff-appellant did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff exempted the plaintiff from the obligation as alleged by the defendant, but the non-party-appellant's testimony of the court below did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff exempted the obligation as alleged by the non-party-appellant Gap from the disposition of deficits of 6-1,2 (Board of Directors), 3 (Accounting Provisions), 7-1 (Notification of Transfer to Board of Audit and Inspection) and 2 (Notification of Correction to Board of Audit and Inspection of Board of Audit and Inspection) without the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (see Article 9, Article 22 of the Addenda of the Act and Article 10 of the Addenda of the former Land Improvement Project Act).

The defendant's attorney asserts that the statute of limitations has expired as of May 31, 1975 under the provisions of the Budget and Accounts Act, since the defendant used a key machine until May 31, 1970, Article 71 of the Budget and Accounts Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the above claim for the fee of use is five years, or the defendant paid a certain amount of 5,022,366 won to the plaintiff until July 31, 1974. Thus, the above fee of use shall be deemed as the approval of the debt unless there is a counter-proof, so the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the defendant's approval of the debt of July 31, 1974, and the defendant's contents of use of the key machine are not valid until March 20, 1972 (the period of use No. 1st and June 3, 1970). Thus, according to Article 53 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act, the defendant's above claim that the above contents of the fee of use fee of the key were not disputeded by the plaintiff's 17.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff an amount equivalent to five percent per annum from August 17, 1975, which is the day following the day on which the complaint of this case was delivered to the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be justified, and the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance, which has concluded a different conclusion, is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal against this part is reasonable, and the defendant's appeal is without merit. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of this case shall be assessed against the defendant who has lost all the first and second trials, and a provisional execution is imposed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Dong-tae (Presiding Judge)