[2] The method of determining whether a citizen’s expectation or trust with respect to the order of the former Act is protected when the amendment is made

[2] In the amendment of a law, the trust of the parties to the order of the former law is reasonable and reasonable, and the public interest purpose to achieve a new legislation is not justified because the party’s damage caused by the amendment of the law is extreme, the new legislation shall not be allowed in light of the principle of trust protection, etc. Provided, That the new legislation shall not be allowed if it is not justified to destroy the party’s trust. However, due to the need following changes in social environment or economic conditions, the new legal order and the existing legal order require conflicts of interest between the changed new legal order and the existing legal order, so all the expectations or trust of the citizen’s interest are not protected as constitutional right, and the issue of protection shall be determined by weighing and balancing the public interest to be achieved through

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the former Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial Rule (amended by Act No. 11494, Oct. 22, 2012; hereinafter “former Anti-National Corruption Act”) provides that “an act of receiving or succeeding to the act by having committed an anti-national act as a co-national act” as one of pro-Japanese acts. However, Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the former Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial Rule (amended by Act No. 11494, Oct. 22, 2012; hereinafter “The Anti-National Corruption Act”) provides that “an act of receiving or succeeding to the act from Japanese colonial rule” shall be excluded, and Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the Addenda of the former Anti-National Corruption Rule (amended by Act No. 11494, Oct. 22, 2012; hereinafter “former Anti-National Corruption Act”) provides that “an act of this case shall not be determined by the Presidential Decree.

B. Meanwhile, Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the former Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts (amended by Act No. 10646, May 19, 201; hereinafter “former Act”) provides that “any person who commits pro-Japanese and anti-national acts whose property belongs to the State” as “any person who commits an act under subparagraphs 6 through 9 of Article 2 of the Special Act on the Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese Rule,” and Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the former Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts (amended by Act No. 10646, May 19, 201; hereinafter “former Act on the Reversion of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts”) shall be deemed to be one of the final and conclusive acts under Article 2 subparag. 6, 8 and 9 of the former Special Act on the Reversion of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Acts,” and Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Presidential Decree.

C. In light of the language, structure, purport, etc. of the relevant provisions, the Act on the Reversion of Pro-Japanese Property refers to a separate law that differs from the legislative purpose and contents of regulations, and the Act on the Reversion of Pro-Japanese Property and the Anti-National Finding Act differs from the “Investigative Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts” and the “Investigative Committee on the Truth of Pro-Japanese Acts” established pursuant to each Act. Thus, even if a judgment revoking the decision on the reversion to the National Treasury by the Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts in accordance with the former Act became final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed that the disposition that applied Article 2 subparag. 7 of the amended Anti-National Finding Act is unlawful. Furthermore, even if the disadvantage such as the compilation of historical materials under the former Anti-National Finding Act was not resolved, it cannot be deemed that the disposition that applied Article 2 subparag. 7 of the amended Anti-National Finding Act was unlawful.

D. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below is just in holding that a disposition to apply the amended provisions of Article 2 subparag. 7 pursuant to the main sentence of the Addenda provision of this case cannot be deemed unlawful on the premise that the proviso of the Addenda provision of this case does not apply to the plaintiff. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of application of the Addenda provision of this case and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. In the amendment of a law, the trust of the parties to the order of the former law is reasonable and reasonable, and the public interest purpose to achieve a new legislation is not justified because the party’s damage caused by the amendment of a law is extremely serious, the new legislation shall not be allowed in light of the principle of trust protection, etc. Provided, That the new legislation is inevitable to change flexibly due to the necessity of changes in social environment or economic conditions. Since conflicts of interest between the changed new legal order and the existing legal order are inevitable, all the expectations and trust of the citizen are not to be protected as constitutional right, and the protection should be determined by comparing and balancing the public interest to be achieved through the need to protect the trust of the person who trusted the existing system and the new system (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2005Hun-Ma222, Oct. 30, 2008).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the following facts: (a) although the application of the amended anti-national rule provisions pursuant to the main text of the Addenda provision of this case may restrict the Plaintiff’s trust that it may be excluded from anti-national actors pursuant to the former anti-national rule; (b) where the supplementary provision of this case was determined as pro-Japanese and anti-national behavior pursuant to Article 2 subparag. 7 of the former Anti-National Code, it is only reported by a decision pursuant to the amended anti-National Code; and (c) Article 2 subparag. 7 of the amended Anti-National Code of Corruption can only be sufficiently confirmed whether the aforementioned provision satisfies the requirements of the revised rule, as it was conducted before the amendment, with the degree of eliminating the part “in the public interest of Korea-Japan merger” as well as the part of the investigation conducted at the time of the previous decision, such as the protection of the procedural rights of the interested parties through objection, it is difficult to say that it is more likely to guarantee the constitutional rights of interested parties including this case’s supplementary provision of this case; (d provision of this case’s 2).

C. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the ground of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the unconstitutionality of the Addenda provision of this case,

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Shin (Presiding Justice)