In case where an inspection conducted a disposition to revert goods recognized as goods on which customs duties have been evaded to the National Treasury in accordance with Article 215 of the Customs Act, and then a disposition to the National Treasury is made to the effect that the above goods are suspected of evading customs duties, whether the State made unjust enrichment on the goods reverted to the National Treasury

Unless a disposition to revert seized articles to the national treasury by a prosecutor based on the provision of Article 215 of the Customs Act is null and void as a matter of course or is revoked or changed by the quasi-appeal, etc. pursuant to Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act, such disposition related to the return of seized articles by a prosecutor shall continue to remain effective as a matter of course. Thus, even if a prosecutor made a disposition to evade customs duties without suspicion, it cannot be readily concluded that the pertinent articles, which are reverted to the national treasury,

Article 741 of the Civil Code, Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 215 of the Customs Act

Plaintiff

Korea

1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall return to the plaintiff the goods listed in the attached sheet.

If it is impossible to enforce compulsory execution on the above article, 37,901,680 won in money and 25 percent per annum from the following day ( July 17, 1984) of the delivery day of the copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment.

Judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2 (Non-prosecution Record and Contents of Case No. 1), 5, 8-6 (Application Form), 9-2 (Seizure Record), 2-2, 8, 9-9 (General Record of Seized Articles), 3-1 (Seizure Record), and 3-1 (Seizure Record) of the same evidence No. 4, the plaintiff was engaged in the business of importing and exporting the 1-3-4-3-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-4-2-4-2-3-4-4-2-3-4-4-2-3-4-4-2-3-4-3-4-4-3-4-4-3-4-4-2-3-4-3-4-4-4-4-2-3-3-17-3-3-4-3-4-4-3-3-4-3-3-4-3-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-3-3-4-3-3-4-3-4-3-4-3-4-4-

Therefore, the purport of the above Article 215 is that the plaintiff's disposition related to the return of seized articles by a prosecutor based on the provisions of the above Article 215 remains valid unless such disposition is null and void or revoked by legal procedure. Thus, the plaintiff's disposition may constitute tort on the ground of its violation of the law, and it cannot be concluded that the above disposition is not a legal ground for violation of the law, even if there is a non-prosecution disposition on the ground of the technical convenience of the law. In the case of a prosecutor's non-prosecution disposition on suspicion of violation of the law, the above benefit should be determined by the law.In light of the above purport, it is not only to vest the defendant with the right in form, but it is merely to vest the defendant with the right in form, as the plaintiff's disposition on the ground of the above Article 215 of the Customs Act is a public prosecutor's disposition on the ground of the above Article 215 of the Customs Act. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the above disposition on the ground that the above disposition on the return of seized articles is null and void by the law.

Thus, the plaintiff's respective claims of this case on the premise that the reversion disposition on the goods of this case has no legal grounds is dismissed as without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Cho Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)