The starting point of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim compensation for damages caused by illegal farmland distribution disposition and Acts applicable thereto;

The starting point of the statute of limitations for the right to claim compensation for damages caused by illegal farmland distribution disposition is when the repayment is completed, and the period of extinctive prescription is ten years of the Civil Code Article 766 (2).

Article 766(2) of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Sung-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 73Na322 delivered on March 21, 1974

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the defendant litigation performer are first examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the period of extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for damages arising from the defendant's illegal disposition of farmland distribution should be calculated from December 5, 1967, when the plaintiff re-purchases the farmland from the non-party who received distribution of the farmland of this case and completed its repayment and completed

However, the claim for damages due to a tort is stipulated in Article 766(2) of the Civil Act that the statute of limitations expire ten years after the date of the tort. It is reasonable to view that the defendant's illegal farmland distribution disposition that the court below held as a tort in this case is already terminated at the time of the completion of repayment due to the distribution.

Therefore, the date of completion of the repayment of the farmland in this case is January 22, 1962, and the filing date of the lawsuit in this case is clear that it is August 17, 1972 when ten years have passed above, the plaintiff's claim for damages has already been extinguished, and the court below stated that the period of extinctive prescription should be calculated from December 5, 1967 purchased by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff should not be calculated from the above 1967. In addition, if the purport of the court below is that the plaintiff had knowledge of the damage and the perpetrator caused by the tort in this case, it shall not be deemed that the five-year prescription period under Article 5 of the Budget and Accounts Act as cited by the court below has expired without setting the five-year prescription period under Article 76 (1) of the Civil Act

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the calculation of the extinctive prescription period for claim for damages due to tort, and thus, the appeal on this point is justified, and without determining the third point of the grounds of appeal, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)