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

Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property

March 25, 2009

Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2008Guhap10829 decided August 12, 2008

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the defendant shall be revoked on March 9, 2007 as to the commencement of the investigation into property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the first to 11 of the first instance court’s “in this case” is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except in the following cases; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In this case, the decision of this case where the plaintiffs sought cancellation is merely a fact that the defendant's act of application does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs in this case because it is merely an investigation of whether the defendant's property acquired by pro-Japanese behavior belongs to the state under the law and is a pro-Japanese property in the future. Thus, it does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs in this case. Article 19 (1) of the Act provides that if the defendant initiates an investigation necessary for the ownership of the property and the property status of pro-Japanese and anti-national behavior, etc. of the parties to this case, the court must make a decision to take a preservative measure necessary after the court's examination after the application for such preservative measure was made, the act of application does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the plaintiffs. In addition, Article 23 (1) of the Act provides that where the defendant decides to vest the property acquired by the state on the ground that it is pro-Japanese property with the consent of a majority of incumbent members pursuant to the provisions of Article 7 (1) of the Act, the decision of this case can not be seen as an appeal.

2. If so, all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case shall be dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of List of Real Estate]

Judges Cho Jae-hoon (Presiding Judge)