1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. From January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, the Defendant obtained and used the Plaintiff’s public property (wasted school property) from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, and the loan charges, etc. are unpaid as stated in the purport of the

B. However, the Defendant cannot seize the property because it has no property, and the demand against the Defendant is returned due to the absence of a written notice, and thus, the instant lawsuit was filed for the interruption of extinctive prescription.

2. Ex officio determination

(a) Even if the rent and late payment charge of the shared general property are not paid by the payment deadline, they may be collected in the same manner as delinquent local taxes are collected pursuant to Article 97 (2) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act;

As such, as simple and economic remedies are provided in the same manner as delinquent local taxes are collected, it is not allowed to seek rent for a public general property as a civil lawsuit, unless there are special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da207941 Decided April 13, 2017, etc.)

B. Meanwhile, Article 97(1) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act provides that the Local Finance Act, etc. shall apply mutatis mutandis to contract procedures, such as public announcement of tender for contracts for public property and goods, preparation of written contracts, and extinctive prescription of monetary claims and debts, etc., and Article 84 of the Local Finance Act provides that a local government’s notice of payment shall have the effect of interrupting prescription. Article 33 of the Local Tax Collection Act provides that public notice of payment shall be served by public notice in cases where the address or place

C. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and regulations, filing the instant lawsuit for the extension of extinctive prescription is prohibited.

3. In accordance with the conclusion, the instant lawsuit is unlawful, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.