(2) The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount equivalent to 1,529,40 won, 613,196 won to the plaintiff 2, and an amount equivalent to 5% per annum from February 15, 1968 to the date of full payment.

(3) The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

(4) All costs of lawsuit in the first and second instances are assessed against the defendant.

(5) In the judgment of the court below, the part on which the plaintiff 1 received 2,500,000 won and the plaintiff 2 received 700,000 won respectively may be provisionally executed.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff et al.

(2) The attorney of the plaintiff et al. filed an incidental appeal to the same purport as that of the Disposition Nos. 1, 2, and 4.

In this case, the defendant is obligated to pay compensation to the plaintiffs who discovered and reported the benefiting properties in accordance with the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act. However, according to Article 5 (3) of the Addenda of the same Act, it is necessary to confirm that the reported property is state property in the payment procedure of compensation. Therefore, it is intended to examine whether the above benefiting properties are confirmed as state property or not.

First of all, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts established as state property on the date stated in the attached Table 1 (a) through 9, and 2 (a) through 4, of each of the above immovables.

Furthermore, with regard to the plaintiffs' assertion that the real estate listed in (b) 10 to 17, and (2) (b) 5 of the Schedule 1 is state property on each of the dates stated in (7) above, the defendant is still arguing that the real estate still has the registration of the name of the individual, and that the ownership of the right has not yet been registered before the State, and that some objects are not yet confirmed as state property, as the State has filed a lawsuit for cancellation registration to cancel the registration of the name of the individual.

Accordingly, according to each of the above Gap evidence 11-2, evidence 12-2, evidence 12-2, above evidence 12-2, 10,12, 13, 14, and 21 of evidence 1-4, among each of the above real estate, the head of the Dong tax office shall examine whether it falls under the above real estate's 1-10 to 14-4 land under the jurisdiction of the Dong Office Tax Office, and shall examine whether it falls under the above 1-7's 7's 7's 7's 7's 8's 8's 8's 11's 8's 8's 8's 11-2's 12's 12-2, 9, 12, 13, 14's 17's 1-4's 2's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1''''''''''''''''''''' 1''''''''''' and 2'''''''''.

In the same way, the issue is whether the measures taken by each head of the competent tax office on the date of the plaintiffs' assertion can be considered as "the confirmation of state property" in Article 5 (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the above.

I think that the expression of the same Act alone has ambiguous points such as the subject or procedure of the Final Act, but it is interpreted that when considering the whole purport of Article 6 of the Addenda of the same Act (amended Act) and Article 5 of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the procedure of confirming the property as the state property for the following property is taken as the premise procedure to pay compensation in the case where the head of the relevant government office (the head of the tax office) deems that the property is obviously benefiting, after reviewing the report document under Article 5 (2) of the Addenda of the same Decree, and the procedure of confirming the ownership of the property is not the requirement of the law (the acquisition of the right for the following property is not the requirement of registration) because the acquisition of the right for the following property is of the nature of the change in the real right under the provision of the law (the acquisition of the right for the property is not the requirement of registration) or the procedure of confirming the state property by the head of the relevant government office (the legal principle that the ownership was transferred before the State and the provisions of Section 5 (4) of the above Annex of the Enforcement Decree are still 16).

Therefore, each of the above real estate was determined as state property between the parties to the lawsuit on the date of the above assertion by the plaintiff et al., and the defendant is obligated to pay as compensation the amount equivalent to 20 percent of the property price (one million won if the amount exceeds one million won) to the plaintiff et al. who discovered and reported the profit-making property.

(2) Furthermore, according to the result of the appraisal by the Nonparty, the amount of compensation for the real estate in question is obvious in the calculation of the amount indicated in the above paragraph (1) since November 1, 1967 to January 1, 1968, as the market price between the date when the Defendant confirmed that it was a state-owned property, and as such, the amount of compensation for the real estate in question is the amount indicated in the above paragraph (11).

따라서 피고는 원고 1에게 위 제1목록 (ㅈ)항 기재의 합계 금 7,802,000원, 원고 2에게 동 제2목록 (ㅈ)항 기재의 합졔 금 2,135,580원 및 이에 대한 본 솟장이 피고에게 송달된 익일임이 기록상 명백한 1968.2.15.부터 완제일까지 연 5푼의 비율에 의한 금원을 지급할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

(3) In the same way, the plaintiff et al.'s claim on the principal lawsuit should be justified and accepted. Since the original judgment that differs from this purport is unfair, the part against the plaintiff et al. shall be revoked pursuant to Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the winning part in the trial shall be accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 199 of the same Act, with respect to the imposition of litigation costs, and Article 199

Judges Noh Jeong-hee (Presiding Judge)