No. 7 of the Decree of the United States Armed Forces (U.S.) at the time of the owner’s assertion of rights over the interest of the property, the ownership of which is obvious in form.

No. 7 of the Decree of the United States Armed Forces determined that a lawsuit or lawsuit was filed to seek the cancellation of the attribution of property stipulated in subparagraph 2 or 33 of the United States Armed Forces Act, in form, and does not limit the owner's filing time of a lawsuit or lawsuit, which is an apparent ownership of Korea, to the extent that the ownership is obviously a Korean owner.

United States Armed Forces No. 7 (Law No. 28, 1948)

Europeanization

Korea

Red Support in the First Instance, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na113 delivered on April 2, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

I think, even if it is the same effect as the law of formal objection, this Decree only provides a lawsuit or lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership based on the substantive right of the property belonging to the military administration of the United States of America as it falls under the property stipulated in subparagraph 2 or 33 of the military administration of the United States of America, 1945, in form, and it does not limit the owner's title holder's title holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's original right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right has not been established.

Therefore, by unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)