In a case where the possessor of a State-owned land recognizes that it is State-owned property after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition and seeks to postpone the time limit for purchase, loan, and payment of indemnity, whether it is deemed as the expression of intent to waive the prescriptive profit

If the possessor of a State-owned miscellaneous land admits that the real estate is owned by the State without title after the expiration of the period of prescriptive acquisition, and expresses his/her intention to obtain a grace period for the purchase, loan, and the payment of indemnity from the State under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, it is reasonable to deem that the possessor clearly expresses his/her intention to approve that the real estate in possession is owned by the State and to not receive the benefit of the completion of the statute of limitations, unlike the proposal for simple purchase or the conclusion of a loan contract.

Articles 184(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da762 delivered on September 29, 1973 (Gong1994Ha, 2601) 93Da4918 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2601) 94Da32511 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 77)

Attorney Kim Sung-sung, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na38822 delivered on November 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4

The court below acknowledged that the Plaintiff's possession of the Plaintiff's real estate of this case expired on November 3, 1987, when 20 years have elapsed from the date of possession, but since then on April 26, 1993, the Plaintiff recognized that the ownership of the above real estate belongs to the Defendant to the State, and the Plaintiff occupies and uses it without permission, and that the Plaintiff entered into a sale or loan contract with the Defendant with respect to the above real estate in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and applied for the suspension of payment of indemnity by the time of conclusion of the loan contract under the State Property Act and subordinate statutes. In light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation as to the decision-making and the agency of the corporation.

As acknowledged by the court below, if the plaintiff recognized that the above real estate is owned by the State without title after the expiration of the prescription period, and confirmed that it is occupied and used without title, and decided by the defendant to obtain a grace period for purchase or loan contract and payment of indemnity from the defendant pursuant to relevant laws and regulations, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff clearly expressed his intention to approve that the above real estate is owned by the State and not for the benefit of completion of prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Da762, Sept. 29, 1973; 93Da4918, Sept. 9, 1994; 94Da32511, Nov. 22, 1994).

In the end, the decision of the court below that the plaintiff renounced the benefit of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of the real estate in this case is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the waiver of the benefit of prescriptive acquisition, such as theory

The Supreme Court precedents in which the theory of classical action is in question are inappropriate to rely on the matter different from the case of this case. The arguments are without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)