[1] The scope of the person who can invokes the claim for extinctive prescription

[2] A person who can invoke the extinctive prescription of the right to claim the payment of deposit money (=the State)

[3] In a case where the extinctive prescription of a claim for payment of deposit money has expired in a deposit of compensation for losses made by a business owner under Article 61 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act, whether the business owner may invoke the claim (negative)

[1] Where the extinctive prescription of a claim is completed, the person entitled to invoke the extinctive prescription is limited to the person who is directly benefited from the result of the extinction of the claim by the extinctive prescription, and the creditor against the debtor can invoke it by subrogation of the debtor to the extent necessary to preserve his/her claim. Therefore, a person who does not have a claim against the debtor may not invoke it by subrogation

[2] The right to claim payment of deposit money is a right to claim the payment and delivery of deposit money against the depository office by the victim, and the above right to claim payment of deposit money is extinguished by the statute of limitations, unless the right to claim payment of deposit money is recognized to the depositor, the deposit money belongs to the National Treasury (see Article 55 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs). Therefore, the right to claim payment of deposit money is a national debtor

[3] Under Article 61(2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Act No. 6656, Feb. 4, 2002; Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor), the deposit of compensation for losses made by public project operators is indirectly enforced by Article 65 of the same Act. If such deposit is not voluntary, the application of Article 489 of the Civil Act shall be excluded, and if the deposit is not voluntary, or the contractee expresses his intention not to receive the deposit or the contractee's right to claim the return of the deposit has expired, the contract owner shall not recover the deposit. Thus, even if such deposit manager bears the obligation to confirm that the person is the legitimate right to claim the return of the deposit is the legitimate right to claim the return of the deposit, and even if such deposit manager bears the obligation not to receive direct profits due to the expiration of the period of prescription of the right to claim the return of the deposit, it cannot be invoked by subrogation of the State in its independent position or on behalf

[1] Articles 162 and 404 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 55 of the Regulations on the Management of Deposit Affairs, Article 162 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 61 (2) of the former Land Expropriation Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, Act No. 6656 of Feb. 4, 2002) (see Article 40 (2) of the current Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor), Article 65 (see Article 42 (1) of the current Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor),

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da17552 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong1991, 1269) Supreme Court Decision 97Da22676 delivered on December 26, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 403) / [2] Supreme Court Order 88Ma201 delivered on April 8, 198 (Gong198, 825)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Han-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land Corporation (Attorney Cho Young-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004Na2417 delivered on February 1, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gangnam Branch Branch Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where the extinctive prescription of a claim is completed, the person entitled to invoke the claim is limited to the person who directly benefits from the completion of the extinctive prescription, and the creditor against the debtor can invoke the claim on behalf of the debtor within the necessary extent in order to preserve his/her claim. Thus, a person who does not have any claim against the debtor cannot invoke the claim on behalf of the debtor (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da17552, Mar. 27, 1991; 97Da22676, Dec. 26, 197, etc.). The right to claim payment on deposit is a right to claim payment and delivery of the deposit to the depository, and the above right to claim for recovery of the deposit belongs to the National Treasury unless the right to claim for recovery of the deposit belongs to the State treasury (see Article 55 of the Rules on Deposit). The person entitled to invoke the extinctive prescription of a claim on deposit by the Land Expropriation Committee cannot be used on behalf of the debtor, who is a final debtor of the deposit, even if the right to claim on deposit is not accepted by the State.

2. According to the records, the defendant deposited 19,220,140 won compensation for roads in the Chuncheon District Court of May 22, 1992 under the title of 192 gold bullion (number 1 omitted) and 43 square meters of road (number 2 omitted) under the title of 192, and 30 square meters of road to be used for housing site development projects as stipulated in subparagraph 5 of Article 3 of the former Land Expropriation Act, after obtaining a decision by the Central Land Expropriation Committee for the acquisition of rights, the compensation is paid. However, on the ground that the above land is unregistered and the legitimate right holder to receive the compensation is not known because the name and address of the person to be deposited is unknown, and the compensation for roads in the same subparagraph (number 1 omitted) and compensation for roads in the same subparagraph (number 2 omitted) and compensation for 13,409,400 won cannot be directly invoked by the plaintiff's right of claim for payment of deposit or the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription and judged that the plaintiffs' right to claim the payment of deposit expired, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the person who can invoke the benefit of extinctive prescription, and it is obvious that such illegality affected the judgment. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)