Whether the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State can be applied in cases where a third party only owns the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer of pro-Japanese property against the owner of pro-Japanese property (negative)

In light of the purport of 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 that pro-Japanese property belongs to the State retroactively, and that the pro-Japanese property is transferred to a third party, and that the right acquired by a third party shall not be undermined in certain cases in order to ensure the safety of transaction, “the right acquired by a third party” under the proviso of the same Article refers to the case where the ownership transfer registration is completed in the case of a pro-Japanese property that is real estate. Therefore, if a third party has only the right to file a claim against the owner of pro-Japanese property for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, the said proviso cannot

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

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Na21552 Decided September 4, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 1 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that “The purpose of this Act is to realize justice, establish the national spirit immediately, and realize the constitutional ideology of the 3/1 movement resistance against the Japanese colonialism by cooperating with the Japanese colonial rule at the time of the acquisition, donation, etc., to vest in the State, and by protecting a third person acting in good faith, the property accumulated in the anti-national behavior of pro-Japaneseism at that time, to vest in the State, and to protect the third person acting in good faith, thereby contributing to the safety of transaction.” The main text of Article 3(1) provides that “The pro-Japanese property (including the property used, occupied or managed by the State among pro-Japanese property and pro-Japanese property used or managed by foreign embassies or armed forces by international conventions or agreements, etc.) shall belong to the State at the time of the acquisition, donation, etc., and the proviso thereof shall not infringe upon the right acquired by a third person in good faith.”

In light of the purport of the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Act, the term “the right acquired by a third party” under the proviso of Article 3(1) of the Act means the case where the ownership transfer registration is completed for the real estate identical to this case, so if the third party has only the right to file a claim against the owner of the pro-Japanese property for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration, the said proviso cannot be applied.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff cannot be deemed a third party under the proviso of Article 3 (1) of the Act unless the plaintiff has completed the registration of transfer of ownership in its name, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the proviso of Article 3 (1) of the Act, as otherwise alleged in

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)