[1] Whether the property of pro-Japanese under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State is owned by the State only when a decision of the Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State is made (negative)

[2] Whether “a third party” under the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State includes a person who acquired pro-Japanese property after the enforcement date of the said Special Act (affirmative)

[1] In light of the purpose and contents of Article 3(1) main sentence and Article 9 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State, the pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the same Act does not belong to the State only when the Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State makes a decision on the reversion of property to the State, but it is naturally owned by the State retroactively at the time of the act of causing the acquisition, donation, etc. following the enforcement of the Special Act, and the decision on the reversion of the State to the State is characterized

[2] Article 1 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State also provides for the legislative purpose of the same Act to protect a third party in good faith and ensure the safety of transaction. The proviso of Article 3(1) of the same Act does not limit the scope of a third party to protect only the right that a third party acquired in good faith or with due payment before the enforcement of the Special Act. In addition, in order to prevent the invalidation of the legislative purpose of reversion of pro-Japanese property, it is possible for a person who acquires pro-Japanese property, his heir or bad faith to return or recover the benefits earned by disposing of the property to a third party through a trial or separate legislation, but to transfer risks to a third party in good faith who is not related to the pro-Japanese and anti-national Collaborators, etc., the safety of general transaction is likely to be harmed. In light of the purport and content of the above provisions, not only the person who acquired the property before the enforcement date but also the person who acquired the property before the enforcement date of the Act.

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2, Article 3(1), and Article 9 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property for Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State / [2] Article 1 and Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property for Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State

Plaintiff (Law Firm No. 1, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts (Attorney Jeong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Criminal Administration Act (Law No. 2008Guhap433 decided July 8, 2008)

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The main text of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Belonging to Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts (hereinafter “Special Act”) provides that “property belonging to pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts (hereinafter “property belonging to pro-Japanese”) shall belong to the State at the time of acquisition, donation, etc., and does not provide that the State shall become effective only when a decision is made by the Investigation Committee on Property Belonging to Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts (hereinafter “the Committee”). In addition, the term of the Committee’s activities is limited to four years and shall be extended only once by two years (Article 9 of the Special Act). Therefore, it is necessary to continuously resolve the issue of reversion to pro-Japanese and State even after

In light of the purport and contents of the above provisions, pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act is not owned by the State only when the Committee makes a decision on the reversion to the State, but it is naturally owned by the State retroactively at the time of the act of causing the acquisition, donation, etc. by the enforcement of the Special Act. The decision on the reversion to the State of the Committee has the character of so-called quasi-legal administrative act confirming that the property concerned

Meanwhile, Article 1 of the Special Act also provides for the legislative purpose of the Special Act to protect a third party acting in good faith and ensure the safety of transaction. Article 3(1) proviso of the Special Act does not limit the scope of a third party to the effect that only the right that a third party acquired in good faith or has acquired by paying a fair price is protected prior to the enforcement of the Special Act. In addition, in order to prevent the decilation of the legislative purpose of reversion of pro-Japanese property to a State, it is possible for a person acting in good faith to return or recover benefits acquired by disposing of the property to a third party through a trial or a separate legislation, and to transfer risks to a third party acting in good faith who is not related to a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender, etc., even though it is possible to receive or recover benefits from the disposal of the property to a third party, and it is highly likely to undermine the safety of transaction in general.

In light of the purport and contents of the above provisions, the term “third party” under the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act shall be deemed to include not only the person who acquired the pro-Japanese property before the enforcement date of the Special Act but also the person who acquired the pro-Japanese property

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the heir of the non-party non-party who committed pro-Japanese and anti-national acts on September 8, 2006 after the enforcement date of the Special Act ( December 29, 2005) and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and the defendant decided to vest the land of this case in the State on November 22, 2007 on the ground that the land of this case constitutes pro-Japanese property. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the provision of Article 3 (1) proviso of the Special Act to protect only a third party who acquired pro-Japanese property prior to the enforcement date of the Special Act, and revoked the defendant's decision on the reversion of the State of this case,

In light of the above legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of the proviso of Article 3 (2) of the Special Act.

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 Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)