10 years of extinctive prescription and Article 53 of the Local Finance Act

Even if the ten-year extinctive prescription is asserted, since the period of extinctive prescription of a claim aimed at paying money to a local government is five years, it shall be examined as to whether the extinctive prescription expires accordingly.

Article 162 of the Civil Act, Article 53 of the Local Finance Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1089 Decided August 30, 1968

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jong-il, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gwangju City (Attorney Kim Yong-sik, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 75Na454 delivered on April 20, 1977

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff's unjust enrichment on the land of this case from March 1, 1965 to September 30, 1975, as requested by the plaintiff, within the scope of the ten-year prescription period from February 17, 1975, which had not lapsed.

However, according to the records, according to the court below's third oral proceedings, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim on the merits of this case can be claimed for the whole portion of the plaintiff's claim for which 10 years have passed since the lapse of the prescription period, and it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim on the merits of this case is a right for the payment of money to the defendant who is a local government, and that the plaintiff's claim on the merits of this case is a right to a local government, which is a right to a local government under Article 53 of the Local Finance Act, is extinguished by the prescription period unless it is exercised for 5 years. Thus, the court below should decide whether to accept the plaintiff's claim on the completion of the extinctive prescription period under the above provision, but the court below should decide whether to accept the above claim on the whole portion of the plaintiff's claim for which 10 years have not passed since it did not complete all deliberation, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles of the extinctive prescription period under Article 53 of the Local Finance Act, which affected the judgment.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court which is the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)