(a) The validity of expropriation made by public project operators to the persons who own the title on the register as the persons under confinement;

B. Whether state-owned land can be subject to expropriation (affirmative)

(c) The starting point and period of extinctive prescription of the claim for compensation or claim for damages against local governments;

1. The effect of expropriation cannot be denied even if public project operators, without negligence, regarded the nominal owner on the register as the landowner, and completed the confinement procedure by designating him/her as the confined person, because he/she was unaware of the true landowner; and

2. With respect to the land to be expropriated under the Land Expropriation Act, there are no restrictions except the restrictions under the provisions of Article 5 of the said Act, the State-owned land may be expropriated.

3. The extinctive prescription of the claim for damages or the right to claim damages against the local government run from the date on which the right holder was unaware of such right, and the extinctive prescription period is five years according to Article 53 of the Local Finance Act.

(1)Articles 23, 61, 64, (2) 1, 5, and (3) of the Land Expropriation Act; Article 53 of the Local Finance Act; Article 166 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1459 delivered on May 24, 1971, 7171 71Da873 delivered on June 22, 1971, 73Da1645 delivered on December 24, 1974

Korea

Seoul City and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Gwangju High Court Decision 77Na301 delivered on December 27, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal and supplementary appeal by the plaintiff performer are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the agreement under the Land Expropriation Act was established on May 26, 1967 with the defendant non-party 1, who was registered as a right holder on the register as to shares of 273/936 out of the land of this case when the defendant Gwangju City becomes a business owner and was registered as a right holder of the right holder under the Land Expropriation Act. In light of the records, such fact finding by the court below is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence and the expropriation of consultation, such as theory, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the expropriation of real estate. Since the registration of real estate is presumed to have been legitimately passed through the original judgment, it is presumed that the plaintiff-party 2 and the non-party 1 who was registered as the right holder of the right holder under the Land Expropriation Act, and even if the defendant-party 1 was admitted as the right holder, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiff 4717.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below is just in holding that with respect to the share of 663/936 among the land in this case, the land expropriation effect by the decision of May 9, 1967, and with respect to the share of 273/936 shares, the decision of the court below that the defendant Gwangju City acquired it at the time and the previous plaintiff's right was extinguished due to the effect of confirmation of the agreement reached at the time of May 26, 1967 as to the share of 663/936 shares in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles and it is not appropriate for this case.

In addition, there is no restriction on the land to be expropriated or used for the business under the Land Expropriation Act except for the restriction under Article 5 of the Land Expropriation Act, and it is reasonable to deem that the State-owned land can be expropriated if necessary for the public project by the public organization, which is the business operator. It is difficult to deem that Article 1 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that the State-owned land shall be excluded from the land subject to expropriation. In this sense, the lower court’s determination that the State-owned land was legitimately expropriated by the Defendant Gwangju City, a business operator, is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal doctrine.

2. The extinctive prescription is run from the time when a right holder can exercise his/her right and even if he/she was unable to exercise his/her right because it does not affect the running of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, if a claim for damages or a claim for damages occurred in the amount of 411,060 won against Defendant Gwangju City as of May 9, 1967, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the extinctive prescription shall be deemed to run on that day. Article 53 of the Local Finance Act provides that the extinctive prescription period shall be five years (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da1048, Dec. 13, 77) except where the cause for payment of money exists and there is a provision of the extinctive prescription shorter than this in other Acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Da1048, Dec. 13, 77). The court below was justified in holding that the claim for damages or the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)