친일재산확인결정처분취소
1. The land indicated in the real estate list (attached Form 1) by the defendant against the plaintiff on September 25, 2009.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On April 6, 1913, and September 9, 1917, the Plaintiff’s early husband acquired the land indicated in the real estate list [Attachment 1] (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land was inherited to the Plaintiff after the death of B and the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 31, 1989 (D land April 30, 199), and the ownership transfer registration was transferred to EP Corporation, etc. on May 18, 2006.
B. The Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts (the term of the Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts) (the defendant succeeded to the authority related to the disposition of this case as of July 12, 2010) conducted an investigation as to whether the land of this case constitutes the property of pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts (hereinafter “Special Act”), and on September 25, 2009, “B” committed an act under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Special Act on the Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese Rule of Japanese Occupation (hereinafter “The Fact-Finding Act”) and constitutes a pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (a) of the Special Act, and the land of this case constitutes the property acquired in return for cooperation on April 6, 1913 and September 9, 1917.
(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case"). 【Ground for Recognition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s Disposition of this case’s No. 1, 2, 6, 7, 19, and evidence No. 2 of this case’s No. 1, 2, 6, 19, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The Defendant’s assertion is premised on the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment equivalent to the disposal price as the Plaintiff cannot make a decision on the reversion of the State by disposing of the instant land to a third party acting in good faith after the enforcement of the Special Act.