Whether “third party” to be protected pursuant to the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State includes a person who has formed a legal relationship with pro-Japanese property after the enforcement of the said Special Act (affirmative)

The proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State is limited to “a third party who acquired pro-Japanese property prior to the enforcement date of the Special Act.” It is not permissible because it is inconsistent with the clear text of the above proviso, which provides that “the right acquired in good faith or by a third party for fair payment,” in relation to the purpose of the enactment of the Special Act, which is legal stability through the protection of a third party acting in good faith, and the scope of a third party protected by the proviso.”

Article 3 (1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Owned by Pro-Japanese and People to the State.

An administrative agency shall hold concurrent office concurrently (Attorney Kim Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborative Property

June 13, 2008

1. On November 22, 2007, the Defendant’s decision on November 22, 2007 as to the reversion of a pro-Japanese property state with respect to 1,660 square meters of miscellaneous land and 690 square meters of miscellaneous land owned by the Plaintiff on November 2, 2007, as well as 4,916 square meters of miscellaneous land.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On October 10, 1913, 1913, 199, 1,660 square meters in Yacheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Yacheon-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) and 690 Miscellaneous land 4,916 square meters in Yacheon-si, Yacheon-do (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land and each of the instant land, collectively, were the land under the circumstances of Nonparty 1, which was the era of Japanese colonial occupation, and was succeeded to Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3 in succession order after the death, and among them, the instant land was again donated to Nonparty 4 on March 6, 1989.

B. On August 19, 2006, the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Nonparty 3 in KRW 35,140,000, and KRW 118,960,000 from Nonparty 4 respectively.

C. On April 13, 2007, the Defendant decided to commence an investigation on each of the instant lands pursuant to Article 19(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (hereinafter “Special Act”) on the ground that Nonparty 1 constitutes a pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State, and decided to vest each of the instant lands in the State (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on November 22, 2007 on the ground that “The registration of transfer of ownership in the Plaintiff’s name was null and void since each of the instant lands falls under the pro-Japanese property under Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Special Act, and the property constitutes pro-Japanese property pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Special Act, which was retroactively reverted to the State on December 29, 2005, since the registration of transfer of ownership after the enforcement date is null and void.”

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence A3-1 to 10, Evidence A4-1, 2, Evidence A6-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant disposition, which was otherwise deemed unlawful, should be protected pursuant to the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act (hereinafter “the instant proviso”), as the Plaintiff did not know that each of the instant lands was pro-Japanese property at the time of acquisition by Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, and acquired by paying a reasonable price.

2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the scope of a third party protected under the proviso of this case is limited to a third party who acquired a pro-Japanese property before the enforcement date of the Special Act, and that the Plaintiff does not constitute a third party protected under the proviso of this case, since the Plaintiff acquired each of the land of this case after December 29, 2005, the enforcement date of the Special Act.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

(c) Markets:

1) 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 and donation. However, the right acquired in good faith by a third party shall not be prejudicial to the right acquired in return for fair payment.” In relation to the scope of a third party protected under the proviso of this case, the scope of the provision of the proviso of this case is limited only depending on whether “a good faith” or “justifiable payment is made” or “the time of acquisition of a kind of property.” However, in rendering the disposition of this case, the defendant is limited to “a third party who acquired a kind of property before the enforcement date of the Special Act.” The defendant interpreted that the provision of the proviso of this case applies only to “a third party who acquired a kind of property before the enforcement date of the Special Act.” The plaintiff who acquired each of the lands of this case after the enforcement date of the Special Act is not a third party protected under the provisions of the proviso of this case, and thus, the defendant’

A) Article 1 of the Special Act provides that "this Act provides for the purpose of legislation at the same time for the sake of ensuring transaction safety through the protection of a third party in good faith by contributing to the property reduced by pro-Japanese behavior at the time when the anti-national act cooperates with the colonial rule of Japanese colonial rule, and by protecting a third party acting in good faith," and provides that "the justification for reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State" as well as "the promotion of transaction safety through the protection of a third party in good faith" as well as "after the repeal of the Anti-National Act on Punishment of Anti-National Acts on February 14, 1951, the Act on Punishment of Anti-National Acts provides for the punishment of anti-national actors so that the National Assembly may go beyond the half-yearly century and did not enact or enforce the Special Act on December 29, 2005, it should not be deemed that the provision of this case should not be interpreted as a legitimate interpretation of the special Act on the grounds that the person acquiring pro-Japanese property should not be seen as a legitimate act of the State or a third party in good faith."

B) On the ground that the proviso of this case should be interpreted as limited as above, the defendant asserts that the Special Act was enacted on December 29, 2005, and that the decision on the reversion of pro-Japanese property is merely an administrative act confirming whether pro-Japanese property is pro-Japanese. However, as seen in the proviso of this case, the provision on the protection of pro-Japanese property should be interpreted as a minimum measure to protect the safety of judicial order, separate from whether the time when pro-Japanese property belongs to the State or the decision on the reversion of the defendant should be made at the time of entry into force of the Special Act, and the enactment of the Special Act on pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators' Property, which is an exception to the establishment of the special Act on pro-Japanese and anti-national property, can not be seen as an act of pro-Japanese and anti-national property, which is an exception to the establishment of the special Act on pro-Japanese and anti-national property, and if so, it cannot be seen as an act of pro-Japanese and anti-national property, which is an object of appeal.

C) In addition, the disposition of this case is not a matter between the State and pro-Japanese actors, but a matter between the State and a bona fide third party, and even from the perspective of equity, it cannot be recognized that the disposal of this case is appropriate and reasonable. The necessity to protect a bona fide third party who acquired real estate through a normal private transaction is no reason to view it differently before the Special Act enters into force or after the Special Act enters into force (at least before the decision of the defendant), but there is no reasonable ground to regard it outside the scope of protection of the Special Act. As seen above, it goes against equity beyond the scope of interpretation of the Special Act. In addition, if the property acquired by a bona fide third party after the enforcement of the Special Act is deemed as pro-Japanese property, and if it is deemed that it is attributed to the State, the bona fide third party should claim the return of the purchase price, etc. paid by him against the descendants of the pro-Japanese, who are the parties to the transaction, and if it is impossible to recover it, the need to protect the third party from the past, which is not consistent with the purpose of the special Act.

2) Ultimately, interpreting the proviso of this case, as alleged by the Defendant, is not consistent with the legislative intent of the Special Act, and cannot be accepted as it threatens the order and safety of judicial transactions. The proviso of this case is just to determine the scope of a third party protected by the “in good faith” or “justifiable payment” in accordance with the legal language and text, and such interpretation should be determined at the time of acquisition, and it shall not be discriminatoryly interpreted by distinguishing whether it was acquired before or after the enforcement of the Special Act.

Therefore, the instant disposition should be revoked as it is unlawful in violation of the proviso of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) and Kim Jong-hee