Even if the Japanese bank's right to deposit by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 57 of the Military Court Act falls under one of the Japanese private claims, there is no way to exercise the right to claim when the law has not yet been enacted pursuant to Article 5 (2) of the Act on the Operation and Management of Claim Fund.

Even if the Japanese bank's right to deposit by the plaintiffs pursuant to Article 57 of the military law constitutes the large civil claim, there is no way to exercise the right to claim in the past where the law has not yet been enacted pursuant to paragraph 2 of this Article.

Article 5 of the Act on the Operation and Management of Funds for Claims

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na3731 delivered on June 5, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the right of Japanese bank, which the plaintiffs claimed in accordance with Article 57 of the Military Court Act, falls under one of the above rights of Japanese government, it cannot be the right of property guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. This itself cannot be said to be the right of property guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Korea only when the State bears specific obligations to pay it under the law. According to Article 5 (1) of the Act on the Operation and Management of Funds for Claims, Japan's right to claim compensation should be compensated out of the funds prescribed by this Act. This Act only provides that the Republic of Korea should compensate out of the above right to claim compensation. Paragraph 2 of this Article provides that the criteria, kinds, limits, etc. of the right to claim compensation under the preceding paragraph shall be separately prescribed by the law, but the right to claim compensation under the preceding paragraph is not established under the premise that the right to claim compensation and the right to claim compensation under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea should not be established, and it cannot be said that there is no other unlawful method of the plaintiff's right to claim compensation.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court