The meaning of concealed property under Article 6 of the Addenda of the State Property Act

Since the real estate reported by the Plaintiff was registered as state-owned property and managed by the Defendant, the name on the registry was illegally lost, such property cannot be deemed as being concealed property under Article 6 of the Addenda to the State Property Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

Article 6 of Addenda to the State Property Act (Law No. 1731), Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the State Property Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (68A22) of the first instance court

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,00,000 and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from the next day of service to the next day of full-time service.

The court costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

Of the facts of the plaintiff's principal, the non-party 1, who was originally owned by the non-party 4 and 6-6-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-half of the woodland in Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, was originally owned by the non-party 1, Japan, and became a property devolving upon August 15, and became a state-owned property pursuant to the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging. The non-party 2 conspired with the employees of Jongno-gu Seoul Office on January 20, 1967, the above real estate of the defendant, which was held by the non-party 2 in collusion with the employees of Jongno-gu Seoul Office on January 20, 1967, issued a certificate that the non-party 2 was the same as the non-party 3, who was the non-party 3 and succeeded to the inheritance registration of the property. The fact that the plaintiff reported the above real estate to the Commissioner of the National Tax Service in Seoul Regional Office

However, considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments as to the statement Nos. 1 through 3, 2, and 3-1, 3-2 of the above evidence Nos. 4, and 5 of the above statement which the plaintiff reported as concealed property under the State Property Act by considering the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the above statement Nos. 4 and 6-1 of the above land Nos. 4 and 6 of the above statement which the plaintiff reported as concealed property under the State Property Act was divided into the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Si Oil-dong (number 2 omitted), (number 3 omitted), (number 4 omitted), (number 2 omitted), and (number 2 omitted), and (number 3 omitted) the above statement was divided into the above statement of the fact that the above statement was recorded in the name of the court below, and (number 3 omitted) the above statement of the fact that the above statement was recorded in the name of the non-party No. 2,622, and (number 3 omitted) the above statement of the fact that it was recorded in the above public property under the same title No. 21 and 61, respectively.

Thus, the above real estate reported by the Plaintiff due to the above facts of recognition is registered as state-owned property on the public register and the name on the register is unlawfully lost after the Defendant was managed as state-owned property. Such property cannot be deemed as being concealed property under Article 5(a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Amendment of the State Property Act.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit cannot be recognized as being a concealed state property, it shall be dismissed since it is no longer necessary to wait for the judgment on the remaining arguments of the plaintiff, and it shall return to the effect that there is no reason to wait for the judgment on the remaining arguments of the plaintiff. In this conclusion, the original judgment with the same conclusion is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95,

Judge Sick-man (Presiding Judge)