Whether a decision made by the Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators is subject to an appeal litigation as an administrative disposition (affirmative)

Upon the commencement order of the Property Investigation Commission on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property, a person subject to investigation shall be subject to a practical restriction on the exercise of property right through an application for preservative measures by the above commission, and shall be subject to the legal obligation to comply with the request for submission of materials by the above commission, the request for appearance, etc., and the procedures for filing an objection against the decision on property investigation recognized in the "Special Act on the Ownership of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State" are not sufficient as a remedy method against the person subject to investigation, and the procedures for filing an objection against the decision on property investigation are not sufficient to bring an objection against the disposition on individual fines for negligence or to only the decision on the reversion after the completion of the investigation, so that disputes can be resolved early. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the decision on commencing the Property Investigation of pro-Japanese

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 19 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State.

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Il-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu25106 decided April 15, 2009

Of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment regarding the real estate indicated in the table 11, 12, 25, and 26 of the lower judgment is reversed, and that part of the first instance judgment revoked the same part and remanded to the Seoul Administrative Court. The remaining appeals by Plaintiffs 1 and all appeals by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed. The costs of appeal by Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 are assessed against the same Plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided to commence an investigation into the property by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 19 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (hereinafter "the Act") for revocation (hereinafter "the decision to commence this case") is merely to confirm the scope of the subject matter of investigation and investigate whether the property is pro-Japanese property in accordance with the Act when the defendant belongs to the State. Thus, it does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs on each of the real estate of this case. Article 19 (1) of the Act provides that where the defendant is deemed to be pro-Japanese property, it shall be necessary for the court to file an application for a preservative measure, even if it is decided again after the application to take such preservative measure was filed, the act of application does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs, and Article 23 (1) of the Act provides that the defendant shall not be deemed to belong to the State in accordance with the provisions of Article 7 (1) of the Act, and that the decision to commence administrative litigation shall not be deemed to belong to the person who owns the property of this case.

2. However, where the defendant has commenced an investigation on a reasonable ground that he/she constitutes pro-Japanese property, he/she shall apply for preservative measures to a court pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Act, and where the defendant selects a person subject to investigation or property, he/she shall notify the person subject to investigation or the person subject to investigation of the selection of the person subject to investigation of the selection, and notify the person subject to investigation of the filing of an objection, the procedure and period for the filing of an objection, and other necessary matters, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notification, and where the person subject to investigation is dissatisfied with the selection, he/she may file an objection in writing with the defendant. The defendant shall make a decision on the objection within 30 days from the date of receipt of the objection and notify the applicant of the result in writing without delay, and there is no provision regarding the procedure for raising an objection to the written notification. The defendant may request the person who manages and owns pro-Japanese property in conducting an investigation pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Act, request for submission of financial status and related materials, hearing and hearing statements, etc.

If the defendant's decision to commence property investigation is made, the person subject to investigation shall be subject to a substantial restriction on the exercise of property right through the defendant's request for preservative measure, the defendant's request for submission of materials or request for attendance, etc., the legal duty to comply with the investigation is imposed, the procedure of raising an objection against the decision on property investigation, which is recognized by the Act alone, is not sufficient as a remedy method against the person subject to investigation, and the dispute can be resolved early by dispute over the decision to commence property investigation before and after the completion of the investigation. In full view of the above, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's decision to commence property investigation is an independent administrative disposition directly affecting the rights and duties of the person subject to investigation, which

3. Meanwhile, according to the records of this case, among the real estate owned by the plaintiff 1 on December 19, 2008, the defendant decided to revert the real estate listed in the table 11, 12, 25, and 26 of the court below's attached list 11, 12, 25, and 26 of the court below (hereinafter "real estate the reversion decision") to the state, and as to the remaining real estate owned by the plaintiff 1, excluding the above real estate and the plaintiffs' remaining real estate (hereinafter "combined real estate"), the decision to commence the investigation of this case was revoked. Accordingly, as long as the decision to commence the investigation of this case on the remaining real estate has been revoked, the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs

4. As seen above, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which rejected this part of the lawsuit on the ground that the order of first instance on the real estate devolving ownership did not constitute an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles on an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit. The judgment of the court below on the remaining real estate is erroneous, but it is reasonable to dismiss this part of the

5. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the real estate devolving upon the attribution is reversed, and this part is sufficient for this court to directly render a judgment. Accordingly, the above part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and this part of the case is remanded to the court of first instance pursuant to Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act. The remaining appeals by the plaintiff 1 and all appeals by the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)