2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance

3. Determination

A. Article 1 subparag. 2 of the Act of the Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Military Affairs and Fisheries”) provides that “The ownership of property owned by Japan after August 9, 1945 is prohibited from all disposal of property owned by Japan.” Article 2 of the Military Affairs and Fisheries Act provides that “The ownership of property owned by Japan after August 9, 1945 shall be the ownership of property owned by Japan.”

9. Article 4 of the Military Administration Act provides that the ownership of property devolving upon the State shall be reverted to the United States Armed Forces. The purpose of the provision is to prohibit the disposal of property owned by Japan under the current status of August 9, 1945 and to vest the ownership in the United States Armed Forces (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2176, Dec. 26, 1989). The Military Administration Act and the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State, enacted on December 19, 194, order the possessor of the property to retain the property devolving upon the State and prohibit the disposal or transfer of the property from that time without the permission of the authorities, and thus, the possession of the property devolving upon the State shall be deemed to fall under the possession of another State property in the nature of its title. In addition, Article 15 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State Property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da16156, May 29, 197).