208Guhap9218 friendly property state cancellation of the decision

00

Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property

June 12, 2008

July 17, 2008

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The Defendant’s decision on November 22, 2007 to vest the property state of pro-Japanese with respect to the land of this case against the Plaintiff and the decision to nullify the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage and the registration of creation of a superficies, which was completed by No. 13076 and No. 13077 on August 18, 2006, respectively, shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The “land of this case” is the land under the circumstances of A on October 10, 1913, which was originally the Japanese colonial rule era, and was succeeded to B and C after the death.

B. On August 2, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from C in KRW 47,540,00, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 18, 200, and completed the registration of establishment of a superficies for the entire purpose of the instant land to D Agricultural Cooperative, a creditor of the loan borrowed, as a security for the debt of the loan borrowed, in order to acquire the said purchase fund at the same time, the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 56,00,000 on the instant land and the superficies creation for the entire purpose of the instant land.

C. On April 13, 2007, the defendant decided to commence an investigation into the land of this case pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Special Act on the Ownership of Property of Pro-Japanese (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act"), on April 20, 207, on the ground that he is a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender, and after receiving a decision of prohibition of disposal and provisional disposition from the Jung District Court on April 20, 2007, it constitutes a pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Special Act. According to Article 3(1) of the Special Act, the land of this case was retroactively reverted to the State as of December 29, 2005, but the registration of establishment of the ownership of the plaintiff after the above date of entry into force, the registration of establishment of the ownership under the name of the agricultural cooperative and the establishment of the superficies of each of the above cases is null and void.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1-5, 2-2-1, 3-4, 4-1, 2, and 5-1, 5-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Party’s assertion

(1) Plaintiff 1,

The Plaintiff purchased the instant land from C and acquired it by paying a reasonable price, as well as not knowing that the instant land was a pro rata property at the time of registration of transfer.

① The proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act (hereinafter “the proviso of this case”) does not limit the time of acquisition of a third party’s pro-Japanese property to the date prior to the enforcement of the Special Act. ② If a disposal act of pro-Japanese property is invalidated in whole after the enforcement of the Special Act, the purport of the proviso of this case is dismissed. ③ Article 19(1) of the Special Act provides that protective measures on pro-Japanese property, which began an investigation for the purpose of preventing a situation not attributable to the State by acquiring a third party’s pro-Japanese property in good faith or by acquiring it in good faith, and by acquiring it in good faith, by acquiring it, the third party’s pro-Japanese property after the enforcement of the Special Act, is not subject to the proviso of this case, and thus, if the property is reverted to the State without any condition, the above protective measures are null and void, notwithstanding the third party’s protection under the proviso of this case, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

In addition, since the Special Act stipulates that the time of reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State is the time of the act of causing cause, such as the acquisition and donation of the property, thereby deprived of the property right by retroactive legislation, it violates Articles 13(2) and 23 of the Constitution, and infringes on the essential contents of the property right, and it cannot be said that it is an effective and appropriate method to achieve the legislative purpose, and thus violates the principle of excessive prohibition, which is the principle that restricts the legislation on the restriction of fundamental rights of the people under the Constitution, the disposition of this case under the Special Act, which is unconstitutional, is unlawful.

(2) Defendant

The scope of a third party protected under the proviso of this case is limited to a third party who acquired pro-Japanese mountain before the enforcement date of the Special Act. Since the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case that was pro-Japanese 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.

(b) Relevant statutes;

As shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

(1) The issues of the instant case

The process up to the whole reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State may be divided into (1) by the date of special law commencement, (2) by the date of the defendant's decision to commence an investigation and registration of preservative measure, and (3) by the date of the defendant's decision to belong to the State and the date of registration of transfer of ownership based on such decision. ① A third party who acquired pro-Japanese property during the period is obviously subject to the provisions of the proviso of this case. ③ A third party who acquired the pro-Japanese property during the period is clearly subject to the application of the provisions of this case. ③ A third party is publicly announced by the registration of preservative measure and can deny the validity of the act of disposal made after the registration of preservative measure. Therefore, there is no room to apply the provisions protecting bona fide acquisitor in the

Therefore, the issue of this case is whether a third party, who is a party to a transaction, can be protected under the proviso of this case in cases where a person committing pro-Japanese and anti-national acts, or his/her heir or relative property, knowingly disposes of the pro-Japanese and/or pro-Japanese property under the circumstance that no disclosure is made on the register during the period.

(2) On the following grounds, the third party under the proviso of this case is limited to a person who has acquired the property of pro-Japanese in good faith or has acquired the property of pro-Japanese by paying a reasonable price before the commencement of a special act. If there is a third party who has acquired the property of pro-Japanese after the enforcement of the special act, the pro-Japanese property shall be interpreted to be reverted to the State regardless of whether the third party is bona fide or is paid a reasonable price. Therefore, it is legitimate to determine the reversion of the land of this case acquired by the Plaintiff after the enforcement of the special Act, and to invalidate the registration of establishment of superficies under the name of the plaintiff.

(A) The instant proviso does not clearly stipulate the time of acquisition of pro-Japanese property by a third party protected by bona fide acquisition, and thus causes controversy in interpretation, but it is not possible to interpret that the said proviso shall apply to all third parties who acquired pro-Japanese property in good faith, regardless of the enforcement of the Special Act at Round. On the contrary, it is sufficiently possible to interpret that an acquirer after the date of commencement of the Special Act is not subject to the instant proviso in light of the legislative intent of the Special Act.

The purpose of the Special Act is to realize justice, to establish the national spirit, and to realize the constitutional ideology of the March 1st Movement, which was resistanceed against the Japaneseism, 3.1st century, which was committed by a person who cooperates in the colonial rule of the Japanese colonialism, and who committed anti-national acts fluencing our nation, reverted to the State at that time with the property accumulated as pro-Japanese and anti-national acts, and by promoting the safety of transaction by selecting a third party in good faith (Article 1).

According to the above provisions, the provisions of the Special Act that vests property accumulated in pro-Japanese and anti-national acts in the State and the provisions that protect a third party acting in good faith to ensure the safety of transaction should be interpreted harmoniously as possible in order to achieve the legislative purpose of the Special Act. Although the protection of a third party or the safety of transaction is an important element to be considered in all the legislation, it should not bring about a result that the legislative purpose of a specific law is denotable, and the legislative purpose of the Special Act that is to realize the constitutional ideology of the 3.1 Movement, which is against the principle of Japanese rule, just setting the justice, setting the national period, and setting the foundation of the nation, is to realize the constitutional ideology of the 3.1 Movement, which is against the principle of Japanese rule, can be achieved through the method of devolving property to the State by more strongly protecting the third party acting in good faith and promoting the safety of transaction. Accordingly, the proviso of this case should not be interpreted to the extent that it does not infringe the interest of a third party, which is unavoidably threatened due to the retroactive effect of property belonging to the State.

The descendants of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors who know well the conduct under the proviso of this case are in conflict with the social conflict surrounding the liquidation of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors, controversy over the legislation on the return of real estate by descendants of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors, controversy over the legislation on the return of pro-Japanese property, and the order of the public council for the enactment of the Special Act to keep the press and the special law in the past pass through the National Assembly, and try to dispose of the property in the future. It is clear that the defendant is formed after the enforcement of the Special Act, and there is a considerable time until the decision on the commencement of assistance. Thus, even after the enforcement of the Special Act, it is interpreted that the provision of this case applies to a third party who acquired pro-Japanese property after the enforcement of the Special Act, even if it is interpreted that the provision of this case applies to the third party who acquired the property acquired the property in bad faith after the enforcement of the Special Act, and thus it is practically impossible to recover the property in bad faith after the enforcement of the Special Act.

If it is urgent, it is also impossible to recover the decision.

This result is an unreasonable and unreasonable result that legislators who enacted a special law intend to do so, and therefore cannot be accepted.

(B) Article 19(1) of the Special Act provides that when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Defendant constitutes a kind of property, the Defendant shall decide to commence an investigation and apply for a preservative measure to the court. However, based on the above provision, the Plaintiff asserts that the acquirer after the registration of preservative measure should not be subject to the instant proviso even if he/she acquired a kind of property with prior intent or with due payment for the acquisition thereof, but the acquisitor before the registration of preservative measure should be protected by the instant proviso

According to the registration process guidelines on the reversion of property owned by pro-Japanese and anti-national actors to the State (Article 1142 of the Registration Rules), the registration of the above preservative measure is the provisional disposition registration concerning the object of dispute under the Civil Execution Act. Such provisional disposition, when holding a claim for objects other than money or rights, is a wooden act to enable execution by a final judgment despite a disposal contrary to the provisional disposition by resisting the defendant not later than the closing of argument at the trial court in a lawsuit on the right relationship, and thus, the registration in conflict with the provisional disposition such as transfer of ownership after the provisional disposition becomes final and conclusive as a final and conclusive judgment, shall be cancelled as a natural result. The provisional disposition under special Acts differs in that the existence of such claim is not final and conclusive as a judgment, but it is not different from that of the provisional disposition under the Civil Execution Act in that the defendant becomes final and conclusive as a national reversion decision.

The purpose of the special law to protect the safety of transaction by disclosing the fact of investigation into the real estate in question and ensuring the effectiveness of reversion to the State by denying the validity of an act of disposal conducted after a preservative measure is to protect the safety of transaction. However, the provision on the portion of preservation measures cannot be the basis for interpreting the proviso of this case to the person who acquired pro rata property before the preservative measure is registered.

This is because there is still a need to give public notice in order to prevent the expansion of the third party who suffered losses due to continuous transactions even if the Special Act does not appear to be protected by the provisions of this case, and the fact that the purchaser after the registration of the preservative measure is not entitled to acquire ownership due to the decision of reversion to the State is derived from the original effect of the preservative measure, and there is no relationship with the purchaser's good faith or due payment for the price required by the provisions of this case.

(C) Article 3(1) of the Special Act provides that an act of disposal that occurred after the time when the friendly property belongs to the State shall be deemed null and void by a person with no right at the time of the act of acquisition, etc. of the friendly property to the State, but this would excessively prejudice the trust of the acquisitor and the safety of transaction, and thus, it is necessary to establish a provision for protecting a third party within a certain scope. However, whether the time when the friendly property becomes effective retroactively under the Special Act is deemed to be "the time when the friendly property becomes effective by the State" has an important meaning in relation to the scope of application of the provisions of the proviso of this case. The same is the same as before and after the implementation of the Special Act as the time when the defendant makes a decision to revert to the State, so it is unnecessary to discuss the application of the proviso of this case by dividing the friendly property belonging to the State before and after the implementation of the Special Act, while the time is deemed to be "an act of disposal after the implementation of the Special Act" in accordance with the provisions of the Special Act.

Therefore, under Article 2 of the Act, which is a definition of the property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors, the time when the retroactive reversion takes effect under special Acts, ① The pro-Japanese and anti-national actors" means those who committed acts under subparagraphs 6 through 9 of Article 2 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Finding of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese Rule or those who committed pro-Japanese acts under Article 2 of the Special Act on Finding of Anti-National Acts, and whose ownership can be found to have the same effect as that of pro-Japanese and their families after the enactment of the Special Act on Finding of Anti-National Acts, on the grounds that if the defendant's initial decision on pro-Japanese property becomes effective after the enforcement of the Act on Finding of Anti-National Acts, it can be seen that the defendant's initial decision on the anti-national property becomes more severe than that of pro-Japanese and thus, it can be seen that the defendant's initial decision on the anti-national property becomes effective after the enactment of the Special Act on Finding of Property under the Japanese Rule.

It should be viewed that there is a procedural meaning to confirm that the property is a kind of property as a premise for completion.

(D) Article 23 (2) of the Special Act provides that an administrative appeal or administrative office shall be filed against the decision to revert the country of the defendant.

It provides that a disposition that is the subject of an administrative litigation may bring an action may be brought to the court. Since a disposition refers to an act that forms an individual’s rights and obligations or establishes the scope thereof, it may be said that a kind of property is confirmed and its reversion takes effect only with the effect of the disposition on the premise that the above provision recognizes the nature of the disposition by the defendant.

However, the act of confirmation by an administrative agency is a quasi-legal act that establishes and declares the existence of the existing legal facts or legal relations as a public authority, and the effect of the act is not determined by the provisions of law, not by the opinion of the administrative agency, but by the opinion of the administrative agency, and it does not mean that the act is not uniformly disposed of. The decision by the defendant is an act to confirm the fact that the pertinent property is subject to a kind of property retroactively effective by the enforcement of the Special Act. The decision by the defendant is an act to confirm the fact that the pertinent property is subject to a kind of property retroactively effective by the enforcement of the Special Act, and the legal effect that the ownership transfer registration for a kind of property becomes effective by the unilateral entrustment of the State occurs by the decision, and the decision by the State constitutes a disposition subject to administrative litigation. Such interpretation does not coincide with the interpretation

(E) If it is interpreted that a third party who acquired a pro-Japanese property after the enforcement of the Special Act can not be protected by the right even if it is in good faith, the buyer can not deny that the seller is a pro-Japanese property if only the seller sells the property in bad faith to avoid the reversion to the State, and the buyer bears the burden to enter into a sales contract after confirming whether the property is pro-Japanese property, and that there is a harsh problem that harms transaction safety.

However, since public confidence is not recognized in the registration of real estate under the Korean Civil Code, entry in the register shall be made.

As the result of the third party who traded B with trust in the last time lose ownership on the ground of the invalidation of the cause of registration, it does not arise only in the case of pro-Japanese property under a non-special law, but also in the case of pro-Japaneseism, a broad consensus among the people on the justification and necessity that the nation should liquidate the remains of the colonial rule in the late Japanese colonial rule has been formed, the legislators made a legislative decision on the premise that it is inevitable to infringe a third party’s interest or transaction safety to a certain extent when enacting the legislation that retroactively reverses the past completed legal relations, and thus, it is reasonable to interpret the provisions prescribed for the protection of the third party or transaction safety to the reasonable extent that it does not result in the elimination of the basic ideology of a special law or legitimate legislative purpose.

(3) Furthermore, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition was made on the basis of a special law that is unconstitutional and thus illegal. However, even if a genuine-level legislation with the content of deprivation of an individual’s legal status that has been formed under the existing law and has already been formed by ex post facto legislation, it may be exceptionally granted in cases where it is difficult for the Plaintiff to expect retroactive legislation, or where there is little benefit in trust to protect the individual due to uncertainty and confusion of the legal status, or where there is no loss or minor loss of the party by retroactive legislation, or where there is a need for public interest to revise the existing law, while the need to protect the individual’s trust in the legal status is very serious, and it is not objectively justified to accomplish the individual’s trust interest because it is relatively necessary to protect the individual’s trust.

The pro-Japanese act is an act committed as the main tool of Japanese colonialism, which conducts the tension by force against the Republic of Korea, to justify the act of aggression and to pressure the anti-Japanese independence movement to recover national sovereignty, and constitutes a serious counteract against the nation and the State. The recovery of pro-Japanese property acquired in return for the anti-Japanese act by the pro-Japanese act by the pro-Japanese act is a serious demand for the public interest that the people renders the time of the nation, and the legitimacy of its purpose is recognized. Thus, the provisions of the Special Act are not in violation of the Constitution, but rather is to foster the constitutional ideology and spirit. On the other hand, the other party to whom the property is recovered pursuant to the Special Act is a pro-Japanese act or his heir, who received a testamentary gift with the knowledge of being a pro-Japanese property, and such person's ownership of pro-Japanese property is a property acquired and succeeded to without any justifiable reason and without any consideration.

Since the infringement of private interest due to the deprivation of pro-Japanese property is limited to a minor degree, the provisions of special law on the reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State cannot be said to violate the principle of prohibition of deprivation of property rights or prohibition of excessive infringement of essential contents of property rights by retroactive legislation under the Constitution.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

For judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Adjusted or Managed

Judges Kang Jeong-hee

Relevant statutes

Special Act on the Reversion of Property Owned by Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State.

Article 1 (Purpose)

The purpose of this Act is to realize justice, establish the national spirit, and realize the constitutional ideology of the March 1st Movement 199, which was resistanceed against the Japanese rule, by promoting cooperation in the colonial rule of the Japanese rule, and by putting property accumulated by anti-national acts committed by pro-national groups at that time to the State, by protecting a bona fide third person, and by gathering safety in transactions.

Article 2 (Definitions)

The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows:

1. The term "pro-Japanese and anti-national actors to whom the property belongs to the State (hereinafter referred to as "pro-Japanese and anti-national actors")" means any of the following persons:

(a) A person who commits an act under any provision of subparagraphs 6 through 9 of Article 2 of the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Rule of the Japanese colonial Rule (including the sponsoring and supporting person in the case of the member referred to in subparagraph 9): Provided, That the foregoing shall not apply to a person determined by the Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property under Article 4, such as a person who refuses or returns his/her act (act) or a person who actively participates in an independent movement after he/she falls under subparagraph 9;

(b) The award for pro-Japanese acts under Article 2 of the Special Act to Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Rule of Japanese Occupation;

A person who has participated in an independent movement or anti-Japanese movement pursuant to the decision of the Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators under Article 4 and his/her family members, etc., who is deemed to have a serious degree of friendship, such as a person who has committed suicide, punishment, abuse, or arrest, or has instructed or ordered such act.

2. The term "property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors (hereinafter referred to as the "property of pro-Japanese")" means the property acquired by a person committing pro-Japanese and anti-national acts in return for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism from the opening of the Japanese War to August 15, 1945, or donated as a gift with the knowledge that such property is an inherited property or a testamentary gift during the period from the opening of the Korean War to August 15, 1945. The property acquired by a person committing pro-Japanese and anti-national acts in return for pro-Japanese acts shall be presumed to be the property acquired in return for pro-Japanese acts;

Article 3 (Reversion, etc. of Parental Property to the State)

(1) Pro-Japanese property (including property used, occupied, or managed by the State among pro-Japanese property and pro-Japanese property used, occupied, or managed by foreign embassies or staff members in accordance with international conventions, agreements, etc.) shall be owned by the State at the time of an act of cause, such as acquisition or donation: Provided, That the right acquired by a third party in good faith and by paying a reasonable price therefor shall not be prejudiced.

(2) The detailed procedures for reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State and other necessary matters shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 4 (Establishment of Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators)

In order to deliberate on and resolve matters concerning the investigation, management, etc. of pro-Japanese property, the Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Property for Pro-Japanese (hereinafter referred to as the "Committee") shall be established under the jurisdiction of the President.

Article 9 (Operating Period of Committee)

(1) The Committee shall complete its activities within four years from the completion date of its composition.

(2) Where it is impracticable to complete activities within the period referred to in paragraph (1), the Committee may, with the consent of at least 2/3 of all incumbent members, determine the period of activities by two years only once after obtaining approval therefor from the President.

Article 19 (Commencement, etc. of Investigation)

(1) When there is a reasonable ground to believe that an act constitutes pro-Japanese property, the Commission shall, by resolution, commence necessary investigations into the ownership relationship of the relevant property, the status of property of persons who commit pro-Japanese and anti-national acts, etc. In such cases, the Commission shall apply for preservative measures to

(2) Where there is a request to disclose property suspected as pro-Japanese property pursuant to the Official Information Disclosure Act, the State and local governments shall request the Commission to investigate whether pro-Japanese property is pro-Japanese property. In such cases, the Commission shall, after making a decision on whether to grant pro-Japanese property or not, notify the State or local governments of the results thereof after commencing the investigation.

(3) The State and local governments may, when deemed necessary, suspend the procedures for information disclosure under paragraph (2) until the investigation and determination of the Committee.

(4) Where a lawsuit is pending with respect to property suspected as pro-Japanese property, the court may request the Commission to investigate whether the property is pro-Japanese property ex officio or upon request of the party-dead person. In such cases, the Commission shall commence an investigation and determine whether the property is pro-Japanese property and notify the court of the results thereof.

(5) The court may, if deemed necessary, suspend the litigation procedures referred to in the provisions of paragraph (4) until a decision is made by the Committee.

(6) The Committee shall, when it selects persons subject to investigation or property subject to investigation pursuant to paragraph (1), notify the relevant persons subject to investigation, their spouse, lineal descendants or interested parties thereof.

(7) In giving notice pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (6), the Committee shall notify the person subject to the notice of the institution and procedures for and period of an objection and other necessary matters.

(8) Where a person notified pursuant to paragraph (7) has an objection to the selection of a person subject to investigation or a property subject to investigation, he/she may file an objection with the Commission in writing within 60 days from the date of receipt of the notification.

(9) The Committee shall make a decision on an objection within 30 days from the receipt of the objection, and notify the result to the applicant in writing without delay.

(1) Matters necessary for procedures for filing an objection under paragraph (7) shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 23 (Notice of Decision, etc.)

(1) Where the Committee has made a decision to vest property in the State on the grounds of pro-Japanese property pursuant to Article 7, it shall notify the person who manages and owns the property in question of such decision.

(2) Any person who has an objection to a resolution made under paragraph (1) may file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation.

Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial Rule;

Article 2 (Definitions)

For the purpose of this Act, the term "friendly and anti-national acts" means acts falling under any of the following subparagraphs, which have been performed from the opening of the Japanese War to August 15, 1945, from the commencement of the seizure of national sovereignty by the Japanese colonialism:

1. An act of attacking or ordering an attacking against the Japanese colonialism and a military unit booming against a national sovereignty in order to protect the national sovereignty;

2. Act of interfering with activities of an organization or individual who has scracked against the State in order to recover national sovereignty by force, dispersion, confinement, assault, etc.;

3. An act of killing, injuring, or arresting, or giving instructions or orders, to a person who has participated in the independence movement or anti-Japanese movement and his/her family members;

4. The head or executive officer of an organization organized to interfere with an independence movement, who acts centered on decision-making by the organization or takes charge of such activities;

5. An act impeding the independence movement or anti-Japanese movement by smuggling.

6. Conclusion or entrustment of a treaty which infringes on the national sovereignty, such as a treaty of Korea and Japan, and a merger treaty, or the act of gathering such treaty;

8. Activities as a member of the meeting of Japanese Empires or as a member of the meeting;

9. Activities as the Vice-Speaker, advisor, or a witness of the Korean War Veterans General;

10. An act of actively cooperating in the war of aggression as a so-called or higher-ranking officer of the Japanese War;

11. An act of leading or coercing any student volunteer soldier, any student volunteer soldier, any volunteer soldier, any person to be mobilized, or any person to be mobilized on a national scale;

12. The act of forcing the mobilization of a female under the lead for the purpose of committing an offense against Japan;

13. An act of actively cooperating in the colonial rule and aggressive war of the Japanese colonialism by actively attempting to make the decentralization or the yellowization movement of the Japanese colonialism through a social, cultural or cultural institution or organization;

14. Operating munitions manufacturers to assist in the execution of war by the Japanese colonialism, or dedicated money and valuables exceeding the scale prescribed by the Presidential Decree.

15. The act of keeping any member of our nation, who is a judge, prosecutor, or judicial management, with a view to the suppression of carbon pressure, including confinement, adviser, abuse, etc.

16. An act of actively leading members of our nation, such as confinement, adviser, abuse, etc. by managing high class or higher literature officials, military policemen, or police officers, who are members of our nation;

17. Acts of actively cooperating in the colonial rule and aggressive war of the Japanese colonialism as the head or an executive member of the major external group of the Japanese governing body;

18. The act of making a decision-making with a focus on the deprivation of Korean people's property or leading the execution of such decision-making, as an executive officer of central or local organization of the East-in type company or the Food Bank, etc.;

19. Act of significantly cooperating with the Japanese colonial rule, a person who was awarded a reward or decoration in cooperation with the Japanese colonial rule and the war of aggression;

20. The act of actively cooperating with the destruction of national culture and the damage and removal of cultural heritage by Japaneseism and Japanese people. The end is the act of actively cooperating with the destruction of national culture and the removal of cultural heritage.