Plaintiff (Law Firm Nao, Attorneys Yang Ho-hoon et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property

May 13, 2008

1. On November 22, 2007, the Defendant’s decision to revert each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff to Korea is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 4, 5, and Eul evidence 2, and the whole purport of pleadings.

A. On April 7, 1930, the deceased non-party 1 purchased the forest land from non-party 2 on the same Ri (land number 2 omitted) on the wall surface of the High-gun in Goyang-gun in Gyeonggi-do, and on the 22th day of the same month, purchased the forest land from non-party 2, and on the 15th day of the same month (land number 1 omitted), the forest land (land number 2 omitted) was registered for the transfer of ownership on the 25th day of the same month.

On August 6, 1940, when Nonparty 1 died, each of the above forests was succeeded to Nonparty 3 and 4 in succession, and on November 16, 1971, Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6 jointly succeeded to it.

After that, each of the above forests and fields was divided into six parcels, including the land listed in the annexed Table 1, and the land listed in the annexed Table 2, before the same Ri (number 4 omitted) was replaced by the land listed in the annexed Table 2. After that, each of the lands listed in the annexed Table (hereinafter “each of the lands of this case”) was registered on August 4, 1981 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate under the name of Nonparty 5.

B. On September 5, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant land from Nonparty 5 in KRW 162 million, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 8th of the same month.

C. On November 22, 2007, the Defendant rendered a decision on November 22, 2007 to vest each of the instant lands in the State on the ground that “The property falls under “pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts to Which the State belongs” under Article 2 subparag. 1(a) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts (hereinafter “Special Act”); each of the instant lands constitutes pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Act, as the land acquired by Nonparty 1 from Nonparty 2 on April 7, 1930 and on December 22, 1930; and under Article 3(1) of the Special Act, pro-Japanese property belongs retroactively to the State at the time of the act of cause of acquisition as of December 29, 2005, and thus the registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name after the enforcement date is null and void” (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff asserts that since each of the instant lands was acquired without knowing that it was a pro-Japanese property and was acquired by paying a reasonable price, it should be protected pursuant to the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act (hereinafter “proviso of this case”).

2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that, at the time of the enactment and enforcement of a special law, pro-Japanese property was reverted to the State pursuant to the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Special Act, and the proviso of this case is to protect a bona fide third party who acquired pro-Japanese property prior to the enforcement date of the Special Act, the Plaintiff who acquired each of the instant land after December 29, 2005 does not constitute a third party protected under the proviso of this case.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

1) Issues of the instant case

Article 3 (1) of the Special Act provides that "The property of a kind shall belong to the State at the time of the act of causing cause, such as acquisition, donation, etc., such property shall belong to the State. However, the right acquired in good faith by a third party or acquired by paying a reasonable price shall

With respect to the scope of “third party” under the proviso of this case, the Defendant limited interpretation to apply only to “a third party who acquired pro-Japanese property before the enforcement date of the Special Act,” thereby resulting in the disposition of this case. As the Plaintiff does not specifically limit the scope of the third party, the Plaintiff asserts that the third party who acquired pro-Japanese property shall also be protected pursuant to the proviso of this case after the enforcement date of the Special Act. Thus, the issue of this case is how to consider the scope of the third party who intends to protect under the proviso of this case.

2) Scope of the proviso of this case

A) Article 1 of the Special Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to realize justice, to establish a regular national schedule, and to realize the constitutional ideology of the 3/1 movement fighted against the Japanese colonialism by having cooperation with the Japanese colonial rule, and to pressure our people, thereby devolving on the property accumulated in the anti-national behavior at that time, and by protecting a third party acting in good faith, thereby contributing to the safety of transaction, thereby contributing to the State.” Article 1 of the Special Act provides that “The purpose of this Act is to realize the constitutional ideology of the 3/1 movement fighting against the Japanese colonial rule,” along with “the satellite of the reversion of property to the country,” and “the promotion of transaction safety

Accordingly, Article 3 (1) of the Special Act provides that "The property shall belong to the State at the time of the act of causing cause, such as acquisition, donation, etc." in the main text of Article 3 (1) of the Special Act provides that "However, the third party shall not infringe on the rights acquired in good faith or acquired by paying

B) The instant proviso only prescribes that “the right acquired in good faith by a third party or acquired with due payment for a fair price” is subject to restrictions depending on whether a third party has acted in good faith or whether a reasonable price has been paid” in relation to the scope of the third party, and does not have any provision restricting the scope thereof according to “the time of acquisition of a kind of property.”

C) The main text of Article 3(1) of the Special Act provides that “The ownership of a pro-Japanese property shall belong to the State at the time of the act of causing cause, such as acquisition, donation, etc.” provides that the effect of reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State shall be retroactively effective on December 29, 2005, when the Special Act was enacted and enforced.

Meanwhile, Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act provides that the property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors (hereinafter referred to as "pro-Japanese and anti-national actors") means the property acquired or succeeded to for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism from before the commencement of war to August 15, 1945, or the property acquired as legacy or gifts. In such cases, the property acquired by pro-Japanese and anti-national actors prior to the commencement of war to August 15, 1945 shall be presumed to be the property acquired in return for pro-Japanese activities. Article 2 Subparag. 1 of the same Act provides that "The property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors to whom the property belongs to the State" means any person falling under any of the following items. Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act provides that the pro-Japanese and anti-National Collaborative Acts shall be deemed to belong to the State or the property of pro-Japanese and anti-National Collaborative Acts (including persons who participate in the anti-National Collaborative and anti-National Collaborative Acts) by the Commission, who are determined to be an independent and Anti-National Act.

According to the provisions of the Special Act, even if Article 3(1) main text of the Special Act provides that the effective date of the reversion of friendly property shall be deemed to be the time of the enactment and enforcement of the Special Act, the definition of the Special Act on the Act on the Act on the Act on the Act on the Act on the Pro-Japanese Collaborators to Which the State belongs, does not objectively clarify whether the property belongs to the specific person; whether the property falls under the category of friendly property is determined only after the decision of the Committee is made; whether the property is acquired in return for the act of friendship is unclear objectively; and accordingly, the Special Act provides that the Committee shall decide on the investigation and selection of the act of pro-Japanese and the investigation of the act of pro-Japanese and the determination of whether the property is friendly property; accordingly, Article 3(1) main sentence of the Special Act provides that the act of pro-Japanese property shall be retroactively reverted to the State at the time of the act of cause; and it is specific that the act of pro-Japanese property shall be designated by the Defendant Committee as the act of pro-national, and its property shall be reverted to the State.

D) In addition, from the perspective of equity, there is no reason to protect a bona fide third party who acquired real estate as a normal transaction in private law, even if there is no reason to regard it as different before the enforcement of the Special Act or after the enforcement of the Special Act (at least before the decision of the defendant is made), but there is no reasonable ground that the third party who acquired the real estate thereafter is outside the scope of protection of the Special Act.

E) In light of the legislative purpose of the above special law, the provision of its language and text, and the principle of equity, the third party’s scope of the proviso of this case shall be limited to the person who acquired the pro-Japanese property before the enforcement date of this Act, as alleged by the defendant, and it shall be interpreted that the third party who acquired the pro-Japanese property after the enforcement date of this Act shall also be included therein.

When interpreting the scope of the third party under the proviso of this case as above, the defendant argued that if the pro-Japanese property expected to be reverted to the State is transferred to a third party after the enforcement of the Special Act, it shall be included in the scope of protection as well as the third party who has acquired the pro-Japanese property in good faith, and the third party who has acquired it shall be excluded from the legislative intent of the Special Act. However, although the scope of the third party under the proviso of this case is not limited to the person who acquired the property before the enforcement of the Special Act, the legislative intent of the Special Act for the pro-Japanese act to revert the property which was reduced to the State by pro-Japanese act as alleged by the defendant, as argued by the defendant, is partly invalidated, the issue of whether it is pro-Japanese property belonging to the State is a pro-Japanese property or not by the regulations of the Special Act itself, and it is due to the legislative limit specified only by the Committee's decision, and the legislative intent of the legislator cannot be interpreted in accordance with the legislative intent of the defendant as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the scope of a third party protected pursuant to the proviso of this case shall be determined according to “a bona fide” or “justifiable payment of consideration” in accordance with the provision of the law.

3) Sub-decisions

On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired each of the lands of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff knew that the land is pro-Japanese property. The Defendant’s decision to revert each of the lands of this case to the State is against the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act, as it harms the Plaintiff’

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Jeong Ho-sung (Presiding Judge)