2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 13, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the above non-party 1 to purchase 368,90,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the above non-party 1 for the 699-24, 956 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). On December 27, 2006, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Plaintiff (the cause of the registration is the sale on November 30, 2006).

B. Meanwhile, Non-party 2, who was recognized as having contributed to the merger between Korea and Japan on October 7, 1910, was awarded to Non-party 1, and was appointed as the advisor of the mid-gu senior officer on July 6, 1934, and the vice-chairperson on October 13, 1939, and the above non-party 2 purchased and acquired five bits in 30-2 forest 1, 1930 on April 15, 1930.

C. Nonparty 2 died on August 6, 1940, and Nonparty 3, the sole heir, died on February 21, 1951, and Nonparty 4 died on November 16, 1971, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 5 inherited Nonparty 2’s property in succession.

D. The above mountain 20-2 forest was divided into the forest and mountain 20-13 forest and mountain 20-14 forest and mountain 20-13 forest and mountain 20-13 forest and land in mountain 20-13 was converted at the same time as the land was converted into a 699-10 forest and land was converted into a 6th land including the instant land pursuant to the farmland expansion development project under Article 127 of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act around March 17, 1978.

E. On November 22, 2007, the Defendant rendered a decision to the effect that “The instant land is the property acquired between Nonparty 2, a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender, during the period from the opening of the Russian War to August 15, 1945, and should be owned by the State.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

3. Both claims;

(a) Original height;

The Plaintiff had never known at all as to whether the instant land was pro-Japanese property at the time of the instant sales contract, and acquired the ownership of the instant land by paying KRW 368,90,000 for the lawful sale price of the instant land, and thus, it shall not prejudice the Plaintiff’s ownership pursuant to the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (hereinafter “Special Act”), and thus, the instant disposition that decided to revert the instant land to the State is unlawful.

(b) Sponsor;

The scope of a third party protected under the proviso of this case is limited to a third party who formed rights to pro rata property before the enforcement date of the Special Act. Since the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case after December 29, 2005, the enforcement date of the Special Act, it does not constitute a third party protected under the proviso of this case.

4. Determination

A. Regarding the scope of a third party, both the plaintiff and the defendant are disputing whether a third party who newly formed the relationship of rights with respect to pro-Japanese property before and after the enforcement date of the decision on reversion to the State is included in the "third party" under the proviso of this case. Therefore, this is examined.

The purpose of Article 3 of the Special Act is to establish national spirit and realize justice by cooperating with the colonial rule of Japanese colonialism, and by devolving the property accumulated in anti-national behavior of anti-nationalism at that time by the anti-national behavior of our nation, the purpose of this Act is to realize national spirit and realize justice. However, since the retroactive effect of the timing of reversion of ownership is recognized by law, there is a concern that the existing order of trade may be prejudicial to the existing order of trade, the proviso is to protect the third party for the sake of transaction safety.

The scope of the third party who is protected the right from the retroactive effect of the reversion of pro-Japanese property under the proviso of this case is directly related to how the time limit to which the retroactive effect of the reversion of property to the State takes place under the main sentence of Article 3 of the Special Act. Thus, whether the pro-Japanese property should be seen as the time when the legal effect of the ownership of pro-Japanese property occurs, namely, when the pertinent property satisfying the requirements of pro-Japanese property is immediately effective to the State at the time of the implementation of the Special Act, or when the Commission on Investigation of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts (hereinafter referred to as the “Commission”) on the reversion of pro-Japanese property

1) It is reasonable to interpret that the pertinent property that meets the requirements for pro-Japanese property is reverted to the State at the time of the enforcement of a special law in the following respects (the approach).

① The legislative intent of the Special Act is to prevent descendants of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors from claiming the return of ownership on pro-Japanese property after the 1980s.

However, if, in principle, the committee that determines pro-Japanese property is a temporary organization with a four-year period of time, and if the committee's decision can decide that pro-Japanese property is a pro-Japanese property and only belongs to the State after the committee's activities are completed, if the descendants of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors file a lawsuit for the return of pro-Japanese property after the committee's activities are completed, it would be a result that no way to prevent them from doing so and the original legislative intent will be dismissed.

② In addition, Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Act provides that the requirements shall be the property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors, first of all as the requirements to revert to the State as pro-Japanese property. Article 2 subparag. 1(b) provides that “a person whose degree of pro-Japanese is deemed significantly serious” shall be determined through the discretionary decision of the Committee. However, a substantial portion shall be recognized as pro-Japanese actors if there is a fact that an actor has been appointed or re-employed as an official of the actor who is able to establish clear facts, and it is difficult to interpret that pro-Japanese property shall belong to the State at the time of the enforcement of a special Act.

③ According to the legislative process of the Special Act, the original legislative process stated in the review report that “the property shall belong to the State,” but in the review report, the opinion that “it is deemed that the whole content of the bill will belong to the State, and therefore, it is necessary to review the method of modifying the plan to the State, which shall belong to the State, from among the pro-Japanese property, should be returned to the State.” However, in the amendment, there is a need to protect the portion for which a third party has the right for 60 years and later to the effect that the third party has the right,” while prescribing that “the pro-Japanese property shall belong to the State at the time of the act of acquisition, donation, etc. by pro-Japanese and anti-national actors.” At the same time, the retroactive effect of the period of reversion of the State was declared, and it was revised to establish the proviso of this case to protect the right acquired by the third party by paying good faith or due consideration, which seems to have resulted in the legal effect that the property shall immediately belong to the State as a result of the enforcement of the Special Act.

As seen above, if the enforcement of a special law is immediately interpreted that the pro-Japanese property is retroactively owned by the State at the time of the act causing the cause of pro-Japanese actors, the third party who is subject to the retroactive effect is limited to those who acquired the right relationship with respect to pro-Japanese property before the enforcement date, and the proviso of this case is ultimately a provision to protect the rights of the third party within the above scope.

2) Such interpretation is reasonable in the following sense. (1) The proviso of this case also protects the right where a third party purchaser of pro-Japanese property pays for a reasonable price and acquires it in bad faith. If a third party who has formed legal relationship after the enforcement of the Special Act is also included in a third party under the proviso of this case, even though the third party was aware that he was pro-Japanese property, if he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was pro-Japanese property, it would not belong to the State if he was paid for a reasonable price and acquired it. (2) The above interpretation that the third party who formed legal relationship of pro-Japanese property after the enforcement of the Special Act would not be entitled to protect the right of acquisition even if he was acting in good faith. However, considering the above interpretation that only the seller is a pro-Japanese property and the seller bears the burden of concluding a sales contract, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize that the act of disposal of pro-Japanese property constitutes a violation of public trust in the Civil Act and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize the scope of the right to dispose of real property.

B. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the scope of “third party” to be protected under the proviso of this case does not include a person who has formed a legal relationship for pro-Japanese property after the enforcement of the Special Act, and according to the above facts recognized, the Plaintiff newly formed a legal relationship for pro-Japanese property after December 29, 2005, the enforcement date of the Special Act, and thus, does not constitute any obstacle to the State’s determination on the reversion of the land in this case to be owned by the State. Accordingly, the instant disposition based on

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Choi Young-young (Presiding Judge)

1) Reference to the “Report on Examination of Draft of the Special Act on the Restitution of Property of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts” submitted to the Legislation and Judiciary Committee on December 2, 2005 (See htp:/Lms.S.go.go.go.r/blur/Bp/Blurl Detail.mbl.mbl.mbl.mbld = 03046)

Note 2) The “examination Report”, 22 pages.