Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Kim Il-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property

July 15, 2008

1. All plaintiffs' lawsuits are dismissed.

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

The defendant's decision on March 9, 2007 to commence an investigation into an anti-national offender's property shall be revoked as to each real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Basic facts;

The following facts may be acknowledged in the absence of dispute between the parties, or by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1-1-3 and Gap evidence 2-5 (including each number):

A. The non-party, who is the relative father of the plaintiffs, was active as the senior secretary of the Joseon General, and each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "each real estate of this case") is the property inherited from the non-party.

B. On March 9, 2007, the Defendant rendered a decision to commence an investigation pursuant to Article 19 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds that each real estate of this case constitutes pro-Japanese property, and notified the Plaintiffs around that time.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Act provides that "property of a person committing a pro-Japanese and anti-national act" means the property acquired in return for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism from the opening of the war of Rus and the Japanese War during which a person who committed a pro-Japanese and anti-national act committed a deprivation of national sovereignty to August 15, 1945, or the property acquired by legacy or donation knowing that such property is inherited or inherited or that such property is a pro-Japanese property. Each real estate of this case shall be purchased by the non-party, who is a pro-Japanese, by force, before or after being appointed as a member of the Staff General of the Korean War General, from a third party, and shall not constitute pro-Japanese property as stipulated in the above provision. However, the decision of this case that the defendant reported differently

B. Defendant’s assertion

In order to determine whether the instant decision is a pro-Japanese administrative act, it is merely to determine the scope of the subject matter of investigation in advance in order to determine whether it is a pro-Japanese property, and it does not directly affect the rights and obligations of the Plaintiffs. Therefore, it does not constitute an

3. Related statutes;

[Special Act on the Reversion of Property Owned by Anti-National Collaborative Acts to the State]

Article 19 (Commencement, etc. of Investigation)

(1) When there is a reasonable ground to believe that a property falls under pro-Japanese property, the Commission shall commence, by resolution, necessary investigations into the ownership of the property, the status of property of a person who commits pro-Japanese and anti-national acts, etc. In such cases, the Commission shall file

4. Determination on the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' lawsuits

1) On the other hand, an administrative disposition subject to appeal is, in principle, an act of an administrative agency's public law that directly affects the rights and obligations of the general public by ordering the establishment of rights or the burden of obligations under laws and regulations or causing other legal effects on a specific matter (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Du10251, 10268, Nov. 26, 2004). In this case, the decision of this case for which the plaintiffs seek cancellation is made is to confirm the scope of its investigation in accordance with the law when the property acquired by the defendant Commission is reverted to the State, so it does not directly affect the rights and obligations of each real estate of this case, and therefore, the decision of this case does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation (In addition, since the defendant commission's reasonable grounds to recognize this case's pro-Japanese property falls under the limitation of property under Article 19 (1) of the Act, and therefore, it is not necessary to investigate the relation of property owned by the general public and its property under the law as an actual subject to protective disposition.

2) In light of the fact that Article 19(8) of the Act provides for a provision that allows a person subject to investigation, etc. to raise an objection against the decision of commencement of an investigation, the Plaintiffs asserted that the decision of commencement of an investigation of this case constitutes a disposition subject to appeal, but Article 19(8) of the Act provides for a provision that a person subject to investigation, etc. may raise an objection against the decision of commencement of an investigation, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiffs, the purport of the provision is to provide the person concerned with an opportunity to participate in the procedures so that he/she can further protect his/her rights, and therefore, it does not constitute a disposition of commencement of an investigation solely because the Act

3) Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no eligible eligibility.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are all unlawful and thus they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Omission of List of Real Estate]

Judge Jeong Ho-sung (Presiding Judge)