A person who may express his/her intent to waive any profit with the completion of prescription.

A person who may express his/her intent to waive the benefits of the completion of prescription is limited to the parties or agents entitled to the benefits of the completion of prescription, and even if other third parties expressed their intent to waive the benefits of the completion of prescription, this is not effective in relation to the party entitled to the benefits of the completion of prescription.

Articles 184, 245, and 247(2) of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Persons from among the Kim Sung-Jak Park and Lo-Jak (Attorney Lee Dong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea

Changwon District Court Decision 97Na4207 delivered on October 10, 1997

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A person who may express his/her intent to waive the benefits of the completion of prescription is limited to the party or his/her agent to receive the benefits of the completion of prescription, and even if other third parties expressed their intent to waive the benefits of the completion of prescription, it is not effective in relation to the party to receive the benefits of the completion of prescription.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the above land was non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and his wife's possession and cultivation under the above clan's management. The non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 were under the name of the plaintiff's clan on September 19, 1913 and the registration of ownership was completed on December 12, 1958. The plaintiff's acquisition of the above land under the name of the defendant's non-party 1 and the non-party 5's non-party 1 and the non-party 9's non-party 1 were non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1'.

Examining the relevant evidence in comparison with the records, the above fact-finding by the court below is just, and the above determination by the court below based on the fact-finding also conforms to the above opinion of the party members. There is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possession with autonomy, waiver of prescription benefit, and the burden of proof. 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)