[1] The case holding that a waiver of prescription benefits was made in the event that the State property loan contract was concluded and the State property loan was paid after the completion of prescription

[2] Whether it is against the good faith principle to make a claim for extinctive prescription after the completion of extinctive prescription without knowing the right (affirmative)

[1] The case holding that the possessor actively expressed his/her intent to waive the gains on the completion of the acquisition by prescription in cases where he/she entered into a loan agreement with the State property with the purport that it is not possible to claim the annual interest on the land and return it to the original state within a designated period of time when the lease period expires or the contract is terminated, and the indemnity for occupying and using the relevant land without title and the loan charges under the loan agreement are paid to the State after the expiration of the acquisition by prescription

[2] Even if he knows the fact after the completion of the acquisition by prescription and did not assert any right to the pertinent land, it is not allowed under the good faith principle to make a claim for the prescription against it, barring any special circumstance.

[1] Articles 184 and 245 (1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 2 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da2130 delivered on August 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2627), Supreme Court Decision 93Da4918 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2601) Supreme Court Decision 94Da3251 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 77), Supreme Court Decision 97Da5304 delivered on March 10, 1998 (Gong198Sang, 991)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 95Na3506 delivered on April 30, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case (hereinafter the land of this case) as indicated in its holding and completed the prescription period, and then prepared and delivered a written statement to the Doksan-Gun that the defendant acting for the defendant would not assert any right to the land of this case when confirming that the land of this case was owned by the defendant and that the plaintiff occupied it without permission, and again concluded a loan contract with the defendant between the Doksan-Gun and the defendant and the plaintiff for state property with the purport that when the loan period expires or the contract is terminated, the plaintiff would restore the land of this case to its original state within the designated period and return the land of this case, and the plaintiff could not claim any right to the land of this case. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not assert any right to the compensation for occupying the land of this case without title and the loan fee of this case by 193 years under the above loan contract. After the expiration of the prescription period for the land of this case, the plaintiff made the above written statement to the defendant and expressed that there was no evidence as to prove by the plaintiff.

In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding and judgment of the court below, and even if we do not know the fact after the completion of the statute of limitations and do not assert any right to the land of this case, it is not allowed under the good faith principle unless there are special circumstances. Therefore, the decision of the court below is justified in its conclusion and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the waiver of the statute of limitations interest. All arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)