1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The finding of facts and determination by the first instance court that rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion is justifiable even if all the evidence submitted to the court of first instance and this court were examined.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the judgment on the assertion that the Plaintiff added or emphasized by this court, as stated in Paragraph 2 below, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main text of

2. The plaintiff's additional assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that Article 165(2) and (1) of the Civil Act cannot be applied to the claim for reimbursement against the plaintiff who is a local government.

In light of the purport of Article 165(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription of a claim established by a claim having the same effect as a judgment or judgment is set 10 years for a claim to which the short-term extinctive prescription applies, but where the existence of a claim becomes final and conclusive by a judgment, there is no room for dispute over the establishment or extinguishment of the claim, and the need to promptly confirm the legal relationship is extinguished, and it is not desirable to allow the creditor to take various suspended procedures for the interruption of the short-term extinctive prescription. Therefore, in light of the purport of Article 165(1) and (2) of the Civil Act, it is determined that there is no reason to distinguish whether the claim is a claim between the State and a private person, and whether the claim is a claim between the private person (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da26287, 26294, Aug. 24, 206). The Constitutional Court also ruled that the short-term extinctive prescription is applied to a claim, such as a claim against the State and a local government.

The Constitutional Court Order 2002Hun-Ba58 Decided April 29, 2004, and Constitutional Court Order 2016Hun-Ba470 Decided February 22, 2018, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 2002Hun-Ba58, Apr. 29