Whether the suspension of litigation procedures under Article 19(5) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts to the State is the discretionary matters of the court (affirmative)

Article 19(4) and (5) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Owned by Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborators to the State

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1992, 1261) (Law No. 1992, 1261) and 95Hu125 decided Aug. 25, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 3280)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorneys Yang Sung-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na85223 decided Oct. 4, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. On the first ground for appeal

The admission of evidence and fact-finding belong to the full power of the fact-finding court, and this does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal unless it goes beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da77848 delivered on May 25, 2006).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below acknowledged facts based on the evidence of employment, and accepted that the court below recognized the portion of the non-party's share in the non-party's land and building in the non-party's name as the special profit portion of co-inheritors in calculating the amount of property, since the deceased donated it to the non-party.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of its reasoning, violation of the rules of evidence, and incomplete hearing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. On the second ground for appeal

Article 19(4) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese and Anti-National Collaborative Acts to the State may request the Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to investigate whether the property suspected as pro-Japanese property is pro-Japanese property, either ex officio or upon the application of the parties. In this case, the Committee shall initiate an investigation and notify the court of the result thereof, after making a decision on whether the property is pro-Japanese property. Article 19(5) of the same Act provides that "the court may, if deemed necessary, suspend litigation procedures under the provisions of paragraph (4) until the Committee makes a decision on the suspension of litigation procedures pursuant to the provisions of Article 19(5) of the same Act." The court shall determine ex officio at reasonable discretion (see Supreme Court Order 91Ma612, Jan. 15, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 95Hu125, Aug. 25, 1995, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, it is just to affirm the court below’s determination that “It is difficult to conclude that each land in the judgment of the court below constitutes a kind of property, and no other ground exists to exclude it from inherited property,” without suspending litigation procedures.

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the suspension of litigation procedures or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)