In case where the prescription acquisitor concludes a State property loan agreement in addition to a special agreement that it does not recognize the possessor’s right to annual interest after the completion of the prescription and pays the indemnity and rent, etc. for his possession, whether the waiver of the benefits of the completion of

After the completion of the acquisition period for State-owned property loan contract with the State, the loan shall be made by setting the loan period and the loan fee, which shall be responsible for the preservation and management of the land as a good manager, and where the loan period expires or the contract is terminated, it shall be restored to the original state within a designated period, which shall not be recognized as the right of annual appeal. In addition, if the indemnity and the loan were paid for occupying and using the land without title from the previous to the date of the conclusion of the loan contract, it is reasonable to deem that the prescriptive acquisitor actively expressed his/her intent to waive the benefits of the completion of acquisition

Articles 245(1) and 184 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

Plaintiff

Korea

Jeonju District Court Decision 94Na111 delivered on May 12, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below, based on its macroficial evidence, concluded a loan agreement on the land of this case from January 1, 1965 to autonomous possession from January 1, 1965 pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property for Reversion and Article 5 of the Addenda, and concluded a special agreement on the land of this case on January 1, 1985 after twenty years have passed since the expiration of the prescription period, and comprehensively taking account of its explanation evidence, the period of the lease of the land of this case between the defendant and the Jeonju market who represented the defendant on September 26, 1989 to December 31, 191, the loan fee of this case was set as KRW 11,790 per annum, and the plaintiff is not liable for the preservation and management of the land of this case as a good manager, and it is reasonable to acknowledge that the loan agreement of this case was not concluded within the designated period and that the contract was not concluded with the court below's right to collect the loan of this case from 9019.

On the contrary, the Supreme Court Decision 93Da30013 delivered on November 26, 1993 held by the appellant when attacking the judgment of the court below in the opposite position is similar to the case of this case, but it seems that the case of this case is not a case of this case where the existence of an additional contract on the fact that the possessor did not recognize the right of the possessor's annual appeal or the existence of an additional contract on the fact that the indemnity, etc. for illegal possession was paid retroactively, and therefore, it is difficult to accept the appeal to criticize

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The 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 Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)