The case holding that it cannot be deemed to have renounced the benefit of the completion of prescription in light of the circumstance of preparing an application for deferment of payment of indemnity due to illegal possession of State property.

The case holding that where an unauthorized occupant of State-owned property places his seal on the application for postponement of the deadline for the payment of indemnity, etc. at the request of an employee of his/her office, he/she shall not be deemed to have made an active declaration of intention, such as waiver of the right to claim ownership transfer registration, knowing that the acquisition by prescription for the State-owned property is completed, to the State.

Articles 184(1) and 245(1) of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da32511 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 77) Supreme Court Decision 95Da3756 delivered on April 14, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1854) Supreme Court Decision 94Da60301 delivered on September 29, 195 (Gong195Ha, 3610)

Plaintiff (Attorney Long-term et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellee)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na18777 delivered on February 24, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendant's defense against the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff renounced the benefit of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition, in full view of the whole purport of pleading in Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, and Eul evidence 3, the court below rejected the defendant's defense against the defendant on February 19, 192, which was after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition of the land of this case, that the plaintiff occupied the land of this case without any legal title from March 10, 1948 to March 13, 1948 without any legal title, and at the same time requested a grace period for the payment of indemnity by March 13, 13 of the same year, and at the same time, made a commitment that the plaintiff would not raise any objection to the defendant's measures related to the unauthorized possession. However, such fact alone is not sufficient to deem that the plaintiff expressed his intent to waive the right to claim the completion of the prescriptive acquisition after the completion of the prescriptive acquisition.

However, according to the testimony of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 as shown in the record, although Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 stated that they shall go to the head of Namnam-gu at the end, this means that on February 18, 1992, Non-Party 3, who is an employee in charge of the construction of ○○○ Dong Office, went to the plaintiff's office and left to work as a private taxi, and returned to the above office during the following day, he did not know that the plaintiff would go to the above office and find an employee in charge of construction, and that he did not go to the above office after he returned to the above office, he did not request the above employees to find the above office's seal and affix his seal to the above office's seal and affixed the plaintiff's seal to the above office's seal and affixed the plaintiff's seal to the above office's title Nos. 1 and 2, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's right to claim the completion of the acquisition by prescription can not be seen as the ground for appeal No. 2.

2. On the second ground for appeal

In light of the records, the second ground for appeal cannot be deemed to have been asserted by the court below, and it shall be deemed to have been asserted only when it reaches the court of final appeal. Thus, the court below's error of incomplete deliberation on this point cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. The ground for appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal of this case is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)