Confiscation of Ships in Violation of Customs Act and Relationship between Fide Owners

In the judgment of the defendant case against the non-party Gap in violation of the Customs Act, even though the judgment to confiscate the plaintiff's main ship from the non-party to the non-party under subparagraph 1 of Article 199 of the Customs Act became final and conclusive, the judgment of confiscation shall only be effective against the non-party, who was convicted of the facts causing the confiscation, and shall not affect the plaintiff in this case, who is the confiscation owner, who was not the defendant in the criminal case, but could not have an opportunity to defend in the case.

Article 199 of the Customs Act, Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act

100 100

Countries

Gwangju High Court Decision 66Na260 delivered on July 26, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined;

In the judgment of the defendant case against the non-party in violation of the Customs Act, even though the judgment that the plaintiff-owned ship should be forfeited from the non-party under Article 199 and subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act, the judgment of confiscation shall only take effect against the non-party who is the defendant who was convicted of the facts causing the confiscation, and it shall not be effective against the plaintiff to the case where the plaintiff is the owner of confiscated ship who was not the defendant in the criminal case, and the plaintiff shall not have an opportunity to defend the plaintiff in the case. Accordingly, the plaintiff shall not have any influence on the exercise of the right to the ship of this case, and such interpretation shall also be affirmed in light of the provisions of Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, there is no reason to criticize the original judgment with different opinions.

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro