[1] Whether the decision to confirm pro-Japanese property is a disposition contrary to the principle of statutory reservation because the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State does not stipulate the requirements, procedures, method of appeal

[2] The meaning and scope of “a final and conclusive judgment” under Article 2(2) of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State ( May 19, 201)

[3] In a case where Party A transferred the land acquired under the circumstances of Party B’s view to Party B after inheritance to Party C, and the Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts rendered a decision to confirm that the said land is pro-Japanese property, the case holding that the application of the amended Special Act on May 19, 201 to the previous decision on the confirmation of pro-Japanese property in certain cases pursuant to the main sentence of Article 2 of the Addenda to the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts (amended on May 19, 201) does not contravene the prohibition of retroactive legislation, the principle of statutory reservation, and the principle of trust protection

[1] The decision on the reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State and the decision on the confirmation of pro-Japanese property are all quasi-legal administrative acts that confirm that the property subject to investigation under Article 19 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Pro-Japanese Collaborative to the State (hereinafter “Special Act”) constitutes pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Special Act, and the effect of the reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State is not derived from the decision of the Commission, but pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Special Act.

However, if pro-Japanese property is transferred in good faith or to a third party who has paid a reasonable price, the right to dispose of pro-Japanese property has been retroactively lost because the right to dispose of pro-Japanese property belongs to the State retroactively to the time of the act of cause, such as acquisition, donation, etc., and thus, the State only recovers profits acquired from the disposal of pro-Japanese property instead of pro-Japanese property. As such, the decision to confirm pro-Japanese property is based on Articles 5(1) and 23(1) of the Special Act, and it is reasonable to view that the decision to confirm pro-Japanese property is issued in accordance with the same requirement and procedure as the decision to vest pro-Japanese property

[2] In light of the language of the proviso of Article 2 of the Addenda of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (amended by May 19, 201) and the legislative process and purport thereof, it is reasonable to view the “final judgment” as being confined to the final judgment of a case involving pro-Japanese property by a pro-Japanese Collaborators to the extent that it is limited to the final judgment of a case, such as a decision on the reversion of the State related to pro-Japanese property. Thus, even if the same pro-Japanese and anti-National Collaborative

[3] In a case where Party A transferred the land acquired under the circumstances of Party B, after inheritance, to Party B, etc., and the Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts acquired the said land in return for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism, the case holding that the previous Special Act does not violate Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State (hereinafter “amended Special Act”) on May 19, 201, on the ground that Party B’s “a person who was engaged in an act or succeeded to such act through the process of merger” was deleted from “a person who was engaged in an act or succeeded to such act by the process of merger” and “a person who was committed an act by the Japanese No. 10646, etc.” under Article 2 subparag. 1 (b) of the former Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State, even if having received an act from the Japanese No. 10646, the applicant’s belief that it would not be subject to the previous Special Act No. 10.

[1] Article 2 subparag. 2, Articles 3, 5(1), and 23(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators / [2] Article 2 subparag. 7 of the former Special Act on the Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial Rule / [3] Article 2 subparag. 7 of the former Special Act (Amended by Act No. 11494, Oct. 22, 2012); Article 2 subparag. 7 of the former Special Act on the Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial Rule / [3] Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the former Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State (Amended by Act No. 10646, May 19, 201); Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the former Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State; Article 2 subparag. 1(1)

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Lee Han-han et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Justice (Law Firm, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Pedestrian District Court Decision 2010Guhap5431 Decided December 16, 2010

October 30, 2013

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant's disposition of confirming pro-Japanese property against the plaintiff on September 25, 2009 as to the land listed in the attached list of real estate shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of disposition;

A. On April 6, 1913, the Plaintiff acquired the land of this case by inheritance from Nonparty 1 (Seo-dong: Nonparty 1) (Seo-dong, from June 22, 1890 to August 2, 1957), from Annex 2, to Annex 12, from Annex 1, from Annex 1, on September 29, 1917 (hereinafter “Seo-dong land”), and from Annex 1, from Annex 1, to Annex 1, from Annex 2, from Annex 1, 1917 (hereinafter “Seo-dong land”). The Plaintiff respondeded to Nonparty 1 (Seo-dong, Non-Party 1) on the land of this case, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to Jjin-dong Corporation on October 15, 1963; and on the land of Jjin-dong, the Plaintiff responded to the transfer on May 26, 198, and completed the registration of the ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on May 16, 2006, 200.

B. The Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Persons (hereinafter “the Committee”). After examining whether the land in this case was the property of pro-Japanese and anti-National Collaborative Persons (hereinafter “former Special Act”) under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Persons (amended by Act No. 10646, May 19, 201; hereinafter “former Special Act”) (hereinafter “former Special Act”) and examining whether the land in this case constitutes property of pro-Japanese and anti-National Collaborative Persons (hereinafter “pro-Japanese Property”) as stipulated under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the former Special Act on the Reversion of the Anti-National Collaborative Persons’ Property (hereinafter “former Special Act”). On Sept. 25, 2019, Nonparty 1 (U.S. 1: Nonparty 2) constitutes the “former Special Act on the Finding No. 97, Oct. 14, 2012”) and the amendment of the former Special Act on the Finding No. 197.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 19, Eul evidence No. 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Defendant’s assertion

The instant disposition is based on the premise that the Plaintiff cannot make a decision on the reversion of the State by disposing of the instant land to a third party acting in good faith after the enforcement of the Special Act. The instant disposition itself does not change the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations and does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation because it does not change the Plaintiff’s rights and obligations. In addition, the Plaintiff may have the same effect as the winning in the instant lawsuit by winning in the lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment (Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap1550) brought against the Plaintiff. As such, there is no interest in filing a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the instant disposition.

B. Determination

1) Whether the case is subject to appeal litigation

The issue of whether a certain act of an administrative agency can be the subject of an appeal cannot be determined abstractly and generally. In specific cases, an administrative disposition is an enforcement of law with regard to specific facts conducted by an administrative agency as the subject of public authority, which directly affects the rights and obligations of the people. The decision should be made individually by taking into account the content and purport of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the subject, content, form and procedure of the act, the actual relation between the act and disadvantage suffered by interested parties, such as the other party, and the principle of administration by the rule of law, and the attitude of the administrative agency and interested parties related to the act (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Du167, Nov. 18, 2010).

The disposition of this case is a kind of property and it is true that it is pro rata property in order to recover the purchase price of the land of this case because a third party acquired the land of this case in good faith by paying a reasonable price. The disposition of this case is in the same form as the disposition of reversion to the State through a resolution of the committee, such as the disposition of reversion explicitly stipulated in the special law. The plaintiff's wife, the party to the disposition of this case, who is the party to the disposition of this case, is likely to suffer disadvantages that can be deemed to be economicly identical with the disposition of reversion to the State, and the lawsuit of claiming restitution of unjust enrichment is sufficiently expected. In this case, the disposition of this case can be seen as an administrative disposition subject to an appeal litigation, taking into account the following factors: (a) it is necessary to recognize the means that the other party to the disposition can escape the unstable status by opposing the pro-Japanese property confirmation decision itself. This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(ii) the existence of interests in a lawsuit

Since a litigation seeking the relief of the rights and interests infringed or interfered with a disposition by removing the illegal state caused by an illegal disposition from the restoration to the original state, there is a benefit in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the disposition as long as the effect of the disposition continues and the cancellation is possible.

In the instant case, there is no evidence to deem that the instant disposition was revoked or withdrawn by the competent administrative agency or that the infringement of the Plaintiff’s rights and interests was resolved due to the circumstances after the disposition, and that the Plaintiff’s rights or interests retroactively denied the validity of acquisition of the instant land can be restored to its original state by the cancellation of the instant disposition. Moreover, the Plaintiff’s winning in the instant lawsuit claiming restitution of unjust enrichment does not extinguish the validity of the instant disposition. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected.

3) Sub-decisions

The defendant's main defense is without merit.

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

(a) Relevant statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Form.

B. Facts of recognition

1) Non-party 1 (Counter-party 1)'s movement

A) The non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was the five-year-old grandchildren (the non-party 1) of the Jeonyang-gun, the growth father of the steel species, and was appointed as the head of the Siwon on March 14, 1907. On June 4, 1910, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was sealed as the head of the Siwon-gu, the Siwon-won-won. On August 25, 1910, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was sealed as the head of Siwon-gu.

B) On August 29, 1910, immediately after the merger of Korea, Japan enacted and implemented the Decree on Dominium under Article 14 of the Decree on Dominium, under Article 5 of the Korea-Japan Merger Treaty, which provides that “I shall award a writing to a Korean person who has rendered a meritorious deed pulmonary to the Japanese Republic of Korea, especially who is deemed appropriate for commendation, and grant another grade.” Article 2 of the Decree on Dominium provides that “I shall be granted to a Korean person who is a current blood relative of Domins and who is not granted the honorable treatment of Yu, and a Korean person who has made a contribution to the Japanese Republic of Korea.”

C) On October 7, 1910, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter Nonparty 1) received a written act after being the highest position from the Japanese government, under Article 2 of the Decree on Shipbuilding’s Recovery, and received KRW 168,000 from the Korean government bonds on January 13, 1911, and received the Korean government bonds on August 1, 1912, on the ground that “the person has contributed to the previous one-day relationship.” On December 7, 1912, Nonparty 1 continued to be raised after being put in order after being put in order on December 5, 1912, and came to receive the status and privileges from the Japanese government bonds until August 15, 1945, after being put in order on October 3, 1935.

D) On November 4, 1910, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1”) on behalf of the Joseon Do governor, on behalf of the Joseon Do governor, performed the person who was in charge of the auditor’s duty of commission to Japan on behalf of the Joseon Do governor. On December 25, 1910, Nonparty 1 visited the Do governor-do governor-do governor to conduct the person who was in charge of the auditor’s duty of commission. On April 12, 1914, Nonparty 1 took part in the east.

E) From January 16, 1915, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter Nonparty 1: Nonparty 1) served as the adviser of the office of the Samsongsan Association, which was organized under the cooperation and support of the Japanese colonial system. From February 21, 1917, Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) served as the adviser of the Cheongsong pa Association, which was a pro-Japanese organization established under the lead of Espathy, etc.

F) On November 10, 1928, Non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) participated in the border of the Cho Jong-transfer, which was formed for the punishment of the voluntary yellow Francization movement on October 22, 1941, in the qualification of the president of the Joseon Flusium, delivered the national defense donation funds raised at the Joseon Flusium conference to the non-party 1 in the capacity of the chairman of the Joseon Flusium, and on May 30, 1942, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was selected from May 1940, in the National Mlusium organized by the Government of the Republic of Korea. The non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was appointed from May 22, 194, in the position of the president of the Joseon Flusium to the non-party 1, the summary of the national defense donation funds collected from the Joseon Flusium on May 30, 1942.

2) Records on the instant land and the Defendant’s measures

A) The Gyeong-gun, the Gyeong-gun, the Gyeong-gun, and the Jyeong-gun, the Gyeong-gun, and the Jyeong-gun. In 1844, the Gyeong-gun died in 1849, and the Jyeong-gun was applied to the Jyeong-gun in iron in 1849. On the other hand, the Young-gun was applied to the Cheongan-gun, the Yung-gun, the Yung-gun, the Y-gun, the Y-gun, the Y-gun, the Y-gun, the Y-gun, and the Y-gun, the Y-gun, the Y-gun, the Y-gun, the Y-gun, the

B) On August 15, 1849, as to the boundary of a cemetery, which is a loan for Jeonsung-gun and Sungsung-dong loan, the Geongsung-gun recorded as follows: “Seongcheon-gun, Chosung-gun, Cho Sung-gun, Lee Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park Jong-dong, Park.”

C) On November 19, 1855, the Sungcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's Geongcheon-si's transfer to the main land, and the Committee, following a field investigation, revoked the decision to commence an investigation on the land owned by the plaintiff, included in the 300 mix (120 mix) surrounding the cemetery that was moved to the former Geong-gu's Geong-si's Geong-si's transfer to the main land. On June 15, 2007, the Committee revoked the decision to commence an investigation on the land owned by the plaintiff included in the 300 mix around the first 120 mix (2 omitted) but around May 1980.

D) According to the Forest and Survey Division on the Land of Siamamamam-dong, it was written that “the State” was corrected to “g,” and the owner or the relative column stated “Nonindicted 1 (the person outside the station)” as “the owner or the relative column,” and the column was an official column.

E) According to the land survey book on Jin-dong land, the owner’s column is written in the owner’s column as Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) and there is no need to state in the column, and the closed register on Jin-dong land is written in the name column as follows: “No later than February 23, 1910,” and “No later than April 23, 1919, it is written in the right side column as “No later than 35 of the former Book No. 45 of the former Book No. 45, Apr. 23, 1919).”

3) Legislative details and relevant provisions, including the Special Act on the Amendment

A) After the enactment of the Fact-finding Act, the definition of pro-Japanese actors in the process of the enactment of a special act on February 2005 was stipulated as follows: “In cooperation with the colonial rule of the Japanese colonialism, the Japanese government received decoration from the Japanese government, or the conclusion of a treaty or a treaty in the United States of America, etc., instead of taking the initiative, the senior public official and the person who is recognized as highly likely to be pro-Japanese by the decision of the Truth Committee under the Special Act on Finding the Truth of Anti-National Acts under the Japanese colonial Rule (Article 3 subparag. 1). However, as the Act on Finding the fact-finding and the Act on Finding the fact-finding, those who committed a serious and obvious act among those who committed a pro-Japanese act in connection with the fact-finding law were determined as a pro-Japanese national act subject to the reversion of the property to the nation.

B) The Supreme Court’s decision that revokes the decision on the reversion of property in a case where it was not recognized as having received a “act committed in the course of the merger of Korea,” even if a lawsuit disputing the decision on the reversion of property by a person who committed pro-Japanese and anti-National Collaborative Acts was pending, was subsequently amended by Act No. 10646, May 19, 201 (hereinafter “amended Special Act”) by the Act No. 10646, May 19, 201 (hereinafter “amended Special Act”).

C) Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the amended Special Act deleted the part of “the person who committed an act under Article 2 Subparag. 7 of the former Fact-finding Act (the act of receiving or succeeding to the act by contribution to the merger)” as stipulated in Article 2 Subparag. 1(a) of the former Special Act. The main text of Article 2 Subparag. 1(b) of the former Special Act newly provides that “the person who received or succeeded to the act from one day among the pro-Japanese-Japanese-Japanese actors decided by the Committee for Finding the Truth of Anti-National Collaborative Acts,” and Article 2 Subparag. 1(b) of the former Special Act newly provided that “the person who received or succeeded to the act from one day among those decided by the Committee for Finding the Truth of Anti-National Collaborative Acts,” and Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Addenda of the amended Special Act (hereinafter referred to as “Supplementary Rule”) is deemed not to have been decided by the Committee in accordance with Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the former Special Act in the course of examining the amendment of the first proposal.

D) Afterwards, the Act was amended in a manner consistent with the amended special law, and the Act stipulated “act of having received or succeeded to a commission from the Japanese colonial system” as one of the pro-Japanese acts (Article 2 subparag. 7), and also stipulated supplementary provisions such as the Addenda of the amended special law.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 3, 5, 8 to 10, 19, 21, 24, 26, 31, 32, Eul's statements, 10, 26, 27, 29 to 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

1) Determination on pro-Japanese property is a disposition contrary to the principle of statutory reservation because there are no requirements, procedures, methods of appeal, etc. under special Acts.

2) Even if the Special Act was promulgated and enforced after the instant disposition, insofar as the instant land was transferred to a third party before the enforcement of the Special Act, the Plaintiff is not subject to the amended Special Act, and thus, the instant land cannot be deemed as pro-Japanese property pursuant to the amended Special Act. Therefore, even if Nonparty 1 (Nonindicted 1) included the scope of pro-Japanese actors subject to the State’s reversion under the amended Special Act, the instant land that was transferred to a third party before its enforcement and not owned by the Plaintiff does not constitute pro-Japanese property.

3) The proviso to Article 2 of the Addenda provides that the amended provision does not apply to “where it becomes final and conclusive by a final and conclusive judgment that is not subject to this Act” that expands the scope of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors who belong to the State. However, the Plaintiff is not subject to the amended provision pursuant to the proviso to Article 2 of the Addenda, inasmuch as the Plaintiff, prior to the enforcement of the Special Act, was rendered a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as a result of administrative

4) If the amended Special Act constitutes an individual law prohibited by the Constitution, and Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Special Act applies to the determination of a person committing pro-Japanese and anti-national acts that are null and void in the interpretation of the former Special Act, it is inconsistent with the enforcement date of Paragraph 1 of the Addenda, and is also in violation of the principle of retroactive legislative prohibition and the principle of statutory reservation

5) (Subject to the premise that the former Special Act shall apply to the Plaintiff) Nonparty 1 (the person outside the Republic of Korea) is not a person who was engaged in an act for the merger of Korea, but a person who was engaged in an act in the position of a father-child in the position of a father-child in the Joseon Dynasty, and thus, is not a person who was a pro-Japanese act as defined in Article 2 Subparag.

6) The “acquisition” stipulated in Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act does not include the “assessment” by the land survey business and the forest survey business. Moreover, the instant land is the first burial site for the burial site and the setting aside of the marry unit, which was set down by the steel type, and thus, the old legal relations or actual ownership, which forms the basis for the circumstance, has already existed prior to the opening of the Rus and the Japanese War. Accordingly, the instant land does not constitute the pro-Japanese property as stipulated in Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act.

D. Determination

1) Whether the decision to confirm pro-Japanese property violates the principle of statutory reservation

Article 5(1) of the Special Act provides that "the determination of whether to vest property in the State on the grounds that property is pro-Japanese," and Article 23(1) of the Special Act provides that "the Committee shall notify the person who manages and owns the property." Article 3(1) of the Special Act provides that "the pro-Japanese property shall belong to the State at the time of the act of causing cause, such as acquisition, donation, etc.,; however, the right shall not be prejudiced upon the third party's acquisition or payment in good faith." Such determination of reversion to the State has the nature of the so-called quasi-legal act act to verify the fact that the property concerned constitutes pro-Japanese property (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13491, Nov. 13, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13491, Nov. 13, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13491, Jan. 13, 2008>

2) Whether the transfer-friendly property does not fall under the transfer-friendly property before the Special Act was enacted

Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act provides, “The term “property of pro-Japanese” means the property acquired for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism from the commencement of the seizure of national sovereignty to August 15, 1945, or bequeathed or donated with the knowledge that it is the inherited property or pro-Japanese property. In such cases, the property acquired by pro-Japanese and anti-national acts shall be presumed to be the property acquired in return for pro-Japanese acts from the commencement of the war until August 15, 1945.” Article 3(1) of the Special Act provides, “The property of pro-Japanese and anti-national acts shall be deemed to be owned by the State at the time of the act of cause, such as acquisition or donation. However, the right acquired by a third party in good faith shall not be undermined unless the legal grounds for the acquisition of the property of pro-Japanese and anti-Japanese acts were established before the enforcement of the Special Act, and there is no need to limit the scope of the third party’s right to protect the property before or after the enforcement of the Special Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Du3131, Jan. 13, 2013, 20008, etc.

3) Whether the proviso of Article 2 of the Addenda applies

Paragraph (2) of the Addenda provides, “Where the Committee has decided as a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the previous Article, it shall be deemed that it has been decided in accordance with the amended provisions of subparagraph 1 of Article 2: Provided, That this shall not apply where it is confirmed that this Act is not subject to the application of this Act according to a final judgment.” However, it

On February 21, 2008, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation (Seoul Administrative Court No. 2008Guhap7564) seeking its revocation on February 21, 2008 with respect to the determination of reversion of land (the land in this case is not included) 24m24m2 and 191m2 of forest land (the land in this case) and the Supreme Court rendered a final judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on November 2, 2010 (Article 31 and 32 evidence). In relation to this, the National Assembly promoted the amendment of a special law to delete the “the public interest in Hancheon-si merger,” which became the issue in the above judgment, with the aim of preventing the application of the amended special law to the case where the trial is pending, while the case where the trial has been concluded and the judgment has become final and conclusive, the legislative purport and purport of the proviso to paragraph (2) is limited to “the national property related to the final and conclusive judgment” as referred to in the proviso to paragraph (2) 2).

In the case of the Plaintiff, it is merely a final and conclusive judgment in a case involving another-friendly property, which is not the land of this case, and thus cannot be deemed to have received a final and conclusive judgment under the proviso of Article 2 of the Addenda. The Plaintiff’

4) Whether the provisions related to the amended Special Act are unconstitutional

A) The decision of the relevant Constitutional Court

According to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Special Act, pro-Japanese property shall be owned by the State at the time of the act of causing cause, such as acquisition thereof and donation. In relation to the unconstitutionality thereof, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on March 31, 201 that the property right shall not be deemed to be infringed by the Constitution by deprived of property rights or by violating the principle of excessive prohibition (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2008Hun-Ba141, Mar. 31, 201). After the Constitutional Court rendered a decision on whether it violates the principle of retroactive prohibition of legislation, the principle of trust protection, and the principle of excessive prohibition (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2012Hun-Ga1, Jul. 25, 2013).

In the en banc Decision 208Hun-Ba141, the Constitutional Court held that the retroactive reversion of pro-Japanese property does not violate the principle of retroactive legislative prohibition. In the case of “the person who received or succeeded to the act from the Japanese colonial rule,” as the symbolic existence of pro-Japanese group, the status itself contributes to the formation and expansion of pro-Japanese group and cooperate in the maintenance and strengthening of the Japanese colonial rule system, thereby adversely affecting the Japanese society at that time, there is no circumstance to determine the above provision differently from the above constitutional decision. Even if the person received acts from the Japanese colonial rule, there is no circumstance to determine the above provision differently from the above constitutional decision. A person who believed that the property is not subject to the national attribution under the former special law, the trust of the requesting person can not be said to be a minor or protected in light of the process of enactment and legislative purpose of the Special Act, while the person who participated in the Japanese colonial rule cannot be deemed to have obtained the above provision of trust or self-contributation of the Japanese legal system, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above provision of trust or self-conti of the Japanese rule.

B) Whether it is unconstitutional as a disposal law

The Constitution does not have a separate definition of an individual-related law or an individual-related law as a disposal law, and there is no express provision prohibiting the enactment of such a disposal law. Thus, it does not immediately violate the Constitution on the ground that a specific norm constitutes an individual-related law or an individual-related law (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Order 2008Hun-Ba141, Mar. 31, 201). Therefore, even if the amended Special Act was amended under the intent to define Nonparty 1 (foreign-party) as a pro-general-national offender to whom the property belongs to the State, the provision of the amended Special Act cannot be deemed as unconstitutional solely for such reason. Furthermore, Article 2 Subparag. 1(b) of the amended Special Act does not apply to a person who received or succeeded to an act from the Japanese colonial rule, and thus, it is difficult to regard it as an individual or individual-related law (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2012Hun-Ga11, Jul. 25, 2013).

C) Whether it violates the principle of retroactive legislation prohibition, the principle of statutory reservation, and the principle of trust protection

(1) In the amendment of a law, the trust of the parties to the order of the former law is reasonable and reasonable, and the public interest purpose to achieve a new legislation is not justified because the party’s damage caused by the amendment of a law is extreme, the new legislation shall not be allowed in light of the principle of trust protection, etc. Provided, That if the public interest purpose is to achieve a new legislation cannot justify the destruction of the party’s trust, the new legislation shall not be allowed. However, due to the need following changes in social environment or economic conditions, the new legal order and the existing legal order are inevitably changed flexibly. Since conflicts of interest between the changed new legal order and the existing legal order are inevitable, all the expectations or trust of the citizen’s interest should not be protected as constitutional right, and such protection shall be determined by weighing and balancing the public interest to be achieved through the need to protect the trust of the person who trusted the existing system and the new system (see, e.g.

(2) As a matter of course, the main text of Article 3(1) of the former Special Act does not include the pro-Japanese property as owned by the State only when the Committee makes a decision on the reversion of property to the State, but it naturally becomes owned by the State retroactively from the time of acquisition, donation, etc. by the enforcement of the Special Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13491, Nov. 13, 2008). Therefore, there is no difference in cases where the ownership transfer registration is completed in the future of the State in accordance with the decision on the reversion of property to the State in accordance with the former Special Act or the decision on the reversion of property to the State in accordance with the revised Special Act after the cancellation of the decision on the reversion of property to the State in accordance with the new Special Act. This is likewise applicable to cases where the decision on the confirmation of pro-Japanese property to recover the purchase price, etc. of pro-Japanese property transferred to

However, the main text of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Addenda provides that the foregoing decision shall be made only when the Committee has decided as a pro-Japanese offender pursuant to the previous provision of the Special Act. As such, the application of the amended special law under the main sentence of Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Addenda to the Special Act may be limited to the Plaintiff’s reliance that it may be excluded from pro-Japanese actors. However, as the Commission can be seen in its provisions, it is in accordance with the decision under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Special Act. Furthermore, it is difficult to further guarantee the constitutional rights of interested parties, including those subject to investigation. Article 2 subparag. 1(b) of the Addenda to the former Special Act provides that if the Committee has decided as a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender pursuant to the former provision of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the former Special Act, the application of the amended special law cannot be sufficiently confirmed to the extent that “the public nature of merger before the amendment is deleted,” and it cannot be seen that the amendment of the former special law is unconstitutional or its established.

D) Sub-committee

We cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the relevant provisions of the amended Special Act violate the Constitution. Accordingly, we should determine whether the instant disposition is unlawful by applying the amended Special Act.

In this case, the fact that the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) was committed on the daily basis by the commission, and the fact that the commission decided the non-party 1 (the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) as the pro-Japanese actors pursuant to Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the former Special Act is as seen earlier. Thus, the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) constitutes pro-Japanese actors under Article 2 subparagraph 1 (b) of the amended Special Act.

5) Whether the land of this case is presumed to be pro rata property

As a matter of principle, the circumstances through the land and forest survey project begin with the report of the “owner”, and thus, the land, forest survey and survey, the preparation of the land, forest survey division and cadastral map and forest map after the assessment is confirmed through the public announcement and objection procedure, it cannot be denied that the land and forest survey project has the confirmative character. However, as the modern legal relationship began to be transplanted in Korea through Japanese colonial rule, there have been a lot of confusion about the attribution of ownership. Accordingly, since the land and forest survey project were used as a means to escape land by the owners of the land and forest survey project due to various circumstances or the fact that it was widely known that the land and forest survey project were used as a means to escape the land by the pro-Japanese and the national actors who were entrusted with it, it shall not be deemed that the circumstance is nothing more than the procedure to obtain the existing ownership of the relevant land and forest by the title of circumstance, and the land and forest register was prepared as a result of the development of the modern land and forest register, and it shall also be deemed that the land and forest land were acquired for the first 20 years.

Therefore, since "acquisition" as stipulated in Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act includes acquisition due to circumstances, the land of this case acquired by Nonparty 1, who is a pro-Japanese and anti-national offender, under the circumstances during the Japanese occupation period, is presumed to be pro-Japanese property pursuant to the latter part of Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Special Act (hereinafter "Presumption Clause").

6) Whether the presumption of pro-Japanese property is reversed

A) Relevant legal principles

Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act provides that "property of pro-Japanese citizens means the property acquired in return for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism from the opening of the Russ/Japanese War to August 15, 1945 from the opening of the Korean War, or inherited property or property bequeathed or donated with the knowledge that such property is a pro-Japanese property. In such cases, the property acquired by a pro-Japanese and anti-Japanese act person from the opening of the Russ/Japan War to August 15, 1945 shall be presumed to be the property acquired in return for pro-Japanese act."

Therefore, in order to reverse the presumption clause of this case, the existence of a fact against the presumption that the acquiring time of property is deceased from the time of acquisition of property to August 15, 1945 should be proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du28335, Mar. 28, 2013; 201Du31390, May 23, 2013). In addition, where a pro-Japanese citizen acquired land through a circumstance, the presumption clause of this case cannot be applied as long as the conviction of the judge as to the premise is no longer maintained, and the acquisition of land and the proof of the fact should be made by the defendant as to the acquisition of land in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du2835, Mar. 28, 2013; 201Du31390, May 23, 2013).

B) Determination

(1) In full view of the aforementioned legal principles and various circumstances as seen below, it cannot be deemed that there is a reasonable probability that the instant land in question, which was circumstances in the future, had already existed prior to the opening of the Russ/Japan War, with respect to the fact that the old legal relations or de facto ownership, which served as the basis of the circumstance, existed. Therefore, the presumption of pro-Japanese property for the instant land is not reversed, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part.

(2) As seen earlier, it is recognized that, in the Joseon Dynasty, the Korean War Veterans Association established a cemetery near the land in which steel species were born, the Korean War Veterans Association, and the Masung-gun, which were the birth and growth of the steel species, were set up, and the surrounding land was set up as a plaque for the management of each burial ground, and that Nonparty 1 (in the Land Survey Division and the Forest Survey Division, Nonparty 1) entered the surrounding land as the owner of the instant land. In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the land of this case, the old legal relations or de facto ownership, which served as the basis for the circumstances, had already existed prior to the opening of the War of Rus/Japan. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

① First, the land of this case is deemed to be a collapse, as alleged by the Plaintiff. The first place of the place of the installation of the installation of a steel species, was located in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul ( Address 2 omitted) and the grave located in the vicinity of the land of the Jeoncheon-gun, which is the birth father of the steel species, appears to have been restored to Ycheon-gun, around 1855. However, the Committee had already established around June 15, 2007, based on the literature records, such as the Ilsung-gun, the Jeoncheon-gun, and the 300 square meters around the grave base located within the 300 m (120 cm), both of which were the Plaintiff’s land owned by the Plaintiff, and the commencement of the investigation was revoked by recognizing the land of this case, which was located within the 300 mix, which was located within the boundary of the 300 marcheon-gun, which appears to be a substitute land within the boundary of the 5th marcheon-gun-gun, as alleged.

(2) In the case of Simam-dong land, no indication is made in the remarks column of the Forest Survey Board, and within 3 years from January 21, 1908, the Sammam-do Act was enforced, together with a summary of the land and area of the relevant land, or the data on the situation that he/she has obtained ownership certification in accordance with the Standards for Classification of State-Owned Property in the Tropic and Mountainousland.

③ In addition, according to the closure register of Jin-dong land, the registration of the title section and Section A around April 1919 was transferred to the registration of the 1910-year title section and Section A. However, the entry of the closed register was made in accordance with the Rules on House Certification, etc., and land ownership was enacted in order to rationalize and guarantee Japanese land ownership in 1906, which was subsequent to the opening of the Rus and the Japanese War, and thus, it is difficult to view that the ownership of modern meaning was established.

④ Furthermore, the report under the Clim Act, the record on the ownership certification, and the record on the closed register are also subsequent to the opening of the Rus and the Japanese War. As such, it is difficult to recognize that Nonparty 1 (hereinafter referred to as Nonparty 1) still acquired the old legal relations or de facto ownership with respect to the instant land before the opening of the Rus and the Japanese War (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Du9563, Apr. 11, 2013; 201Du31390, May 23, 2013).

⑤ In addition, taking into account the circumstances in which Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) was given various interest and preferential treatment in return for pro-Japanese activities, such as taking out a commission of a work immediately after the merger of Korea, there is no room to deem that Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) took part in the land survey, forest survey book, and the details of the registry of the instant land that took place after the opening of the Russ and the Japanese War, it is biased that Nonparty 1 (the Nonparty 1) took part in the land improvement policy led by the Japanese colonial region.

(6) In addition, it cannot be deemed that there is a reasonable probability that the Plaintiff has already existed the old legal relations or de facto ownership, which forms the basis of the circumstances, for the instant land, solely with the circumstances and evidence that the Plaintiff was fluored, prior to the opening of the Rus and the Japanese War.

(3) In the case of the instant land, it is difficult to view that the presumption of pro-Japanese property under the presumption provision of the instant land has broken down. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

7) Sub-committee

The instant disposition is lawful.

4. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff are dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Choi Jong-ho (Presiding Judge) Kim Tae-ho