Whether extinctive prescription takes place from the time when a seller’s obligation to transfer ownership becomes impossible to perform the seller’s obligation to transfer ownership due to the expropriation of the object of sale or nationalization of the object of sale (affirmative in principle), and whether such a legal principle likewise applies to cases where the subject claim is attributable to the debtor (affirmative)

Articles 166 and 390 of the Civil Act

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

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and eight others

Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Na107283 Decided June 8, 2018

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In principle, in a case where a seller’s obligation to register the transfer of ownership has become impossible due to the expropriation of the subject matter of sale or nationalization, the extinctive prescription shall run from the time when the seller’s obligation to register the transfer of ownership at the time when the buyer can exercise his/her right to claim the subject matter, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da23901, Feb. 8, 2002). Furthermore, the legal principle on the starting point of the extinctive prescription of the subject matter is likewise applicable to cases where the seller’s obligation to register the transfer of ownership was impossible due

2. citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s right to claim was extinguished due to the completion of prescription, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s right to claim was clearly recorded in the record, on August 24, 2004, where the Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership was impossible to perform, barring any special circumstance. As such, the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on June 14, 2016, for which ten years have passed since it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s right to claim was extinguished due to the completion of prescription.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on the starting point of extinctive prescription

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 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 Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)