The competent court of an order of preservation for collection under Article 52 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics (=the first or second instance court of the case on the merits) and in case where the records of trial reach the Re-appeal Court after appeal of the case on the merits, the competent court of the case on the request for

Articles 52(1), 54(1) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, Article 311 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Order 68S1 dated March 19, 1969 (Gong2002Sang, 1260) dated April 24, 2002

Defendant

Prosecutor

The case shall be transferred to the Gwangju District Court.

ex officio deemed.

The collection preservation order under Articles 5(1) and 8 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation and Restoration of Corruption Property, Articles 10(1) and 12 of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and Article 52 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Special Cases Concerning the Prevention of Illegal Trafficking in Narcotics, etc.") is an order prohibiting the disposal of a defendant's property when it is deemed that the execution is likely to be impossible or significantly difficult, which is similar to the provisional seizure order under the Civil Execution Act. Accordingly, Article 54(1) and (3) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Confiscation of Narcotics, etc. provides that the collection preservation order shall be executed by a prosecutor's order and the prosecutor's order shall have the same effect as the provisional seizure order under the Civil Execution Act, and the provisions of other Acts and subordinate statutes on the procedure for the execution of provisional seizure under the Civil Execution Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the execution of collection preservation order.

However, Article 311 of the Civil Execution Act provides that the court of first instance among the competent courts of provisional seizure cases shall, in principle, be the court of second instance, and where the merits are pending in the court of second instance, the court of second instance shall be the court of second instance. Furthermore, where the merits are pending in the court of second instance, the court of first instance shall be deemed to have jurisdiction over the provisional seizure case as the court of first instance in the merits (see Supreme Court Order 68S1, Mar. 19, 1969; Supreme Court Order 2002 businessz.4, Apr. 24, 2002). In light of the above, it is inappropriate for the court of first instance to examine the facts as to whether the collection preservation order and the requirements for revocation are met, the court of first instance or second instance is entitled to make the collection preservation order pursuant to Article 52 (1) of the Narcotics Special Act, and after the final appeal of the merits is filed, the court of first instance shall be deemed to have jurisdiction over the court of first instance in the merits case.

Therefore, the case shall be transferred to the Gwangju District Court, which is the first instance court of the criminal case against the defendant, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)