beta
Text
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification of the part No. 16, No. 3, and No. 19, No. 14 as indicated below No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the following No. 2. Thus, it
2. Although the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is acknowledged as a defendant's tort, since the plaintiffs' damage was realized at the time of completion of the acquisition by prescription of third parties, a registered titleholder of the land of this case, as to the land of this case, the plaintiffs' claim for damages on the part for which prescription has been completed not later than five years before April 8, 2015, the date the lawsuit was filed, has expired.B) The claim for damages against the State pursuant to the former part of Article 2 (1) of the State Compensation Act (amended by Act No. 8050 of Oct. 4, 2006) from the date of termination of the tort, the right to claim damages against the State pursuant to Article 71 (2) and (1) of the former Budget and Accounts Act (amended by Act No. 8050 of Oct. 4, 2006) or Article 96 (2) and (1) of the National Finance Act expires unless it is exercised
Pursuant to Article 8 of the State Compensation Act, the starting date of extinctive prescription shall be "the date on which the person becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator," which serves as the starting date of the extinctive prescription under Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act, or "the date on which the person commits a tort" which serves as the starting date of the extinctive prescription under Article 766 (2) of the Civil Act, and "the date on which the tort was committed" which serves as the starting date of the extinctive prescription under Article 766
(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da1894, 1895 delivered on December 26, 1979, etc.). In particular, in the case of damage liability arising from a tort at an interval of time between a harmful act and the actual damage arising therefrom,