The relationship between Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging and the obligations to the third party of the State that is the owner of the property devolving upon the State

Since the provisions of this Article are merely an internal provision concerning the disposal of property devolving upon the State, it cannot issue a legal effect that can exempt the State's obligations to a third party who is the owner of the detained property from the obligations of the State.

Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction, Article 741 of the Civil Code

Estude

Korea

Daejeon District Court Decision 62Na849 delivered on August 30, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Litigation Performers

Article 39 of the Enforcement Rule of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belongings, which requires a custodian of property devolvings to pay taxes and other public charges imposed on the property under his/her control on behalf of the Administrator of the Office of Government Administration or the Director of the Office of Government Administration, is merely an internal regulation on the disposal of property devolvings. Therefore, the legal effect that can exempt a third party of the State that is the owner of property devolvings from the obligation to return unjust enrichment cannot be achieved on the ground that this provision exists, and therefore, the above detailed regulation on the disposal of property devolvings cannot be excluded from the obligation to return unjust enrichment by the defendant that is recognized under the provisions of the Civil Act

The grounds of appeal No. 2

As Article 58 of the former Financial Act provides that the scope of application of the extinctive prescription provision is limited to a claim that does not have any provision of the Civil Act or any other Act, the period of extinctive prescription provided for in Article 58 of the above Act cannot be applied to a claim under private law, and the application of the Civil Act and other Acts shall be deemed to apply to the claim under private law. As such, the original judgment does not apply the statute of limitations provided for in Article 58 of the former Financial Accounting Act (Article 71 of the Budget Accounting Act) with respect to the defendant's obligation to return unjust enrichment on the part of the defendant, and applied the provision of extinctive prescription provided for in the Civil Act without applying the statute of limitations provided for in the above Article 58

The ground of appeal No. 3

According to the purport of the pleading before the pleadings, the defendant recognized the fact that the year of the lawsuit and the factory existed on the site of this case by the date of the dismissal (Records 142) and the new fact that the factory site is used before the non-party, which is a new argument that the non-party uses the factory site as the whole, and it is not reasonable to conclude that there was an error of law by failing to exercise the right to request the payment of rent in the original judgment

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-Jap (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum Magman Mag-ri