1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 17, 2002, the Plaintiff: (a) knew that the Defendant was a genuine owner who owns a 1/3 share in B forest land; (b) acquired the share from the Defendant on May 17, 2002; and (c) paid KRW 27,436,50 as compensation to the Defendant on May 23, 2002.

B. However, the true owner of the above land shares lost the ownership of the above shares acquired from the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to refund the above KRW 27,436,500 to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's defense and its judgment

A. The defendant's defense received the above compensation from the plaintiff on May 23, 2002, and since then 10 years have passed since then, the plaintiff's above claim expired by prescription on May 23, 2012.

B. On the other hand, the argument about how the extinctive prescription period of a certain right becomes effective is merely a mere legal argument, and thus, the court may determine ex officio the right without subject to the principle of pleading.

I would like to say.

Article 82(1) of the Local Finance Act provides that “The rights of local governments for the purpose of payment of money shall be extinguished by prescription, unless they are exercised for five years, except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts.”

Therefore, since the plaintiff's right to the defendant, which is a local government, occurred on May 23, 2002 and the due date has already arrived, it is deemed that the statute of limitations of May 23, 2007 has expired.

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is justified.

The plaintiff is not aware of the existence of the right by the right holder without negligence.