When no confiscation is declared for seized goods, a person to receive the return of seized goods;

When no declaration of forfeiture has been made for seized goods, the proceeds from the sale of such seized goods shall be paid to the genuine owner, who is not the person subject to seizure, when the genuine owner of such seized goods passes.

Article 332 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (67Ga3902) in the first instance trial

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Of the proceeds from the sale of seized articles in the attached list 2,365,00 won, the Defendant shall return 1,237,349 won to Plaintiff 1, and 1,127,650 won to Plaintiff 2, respectively.

The plaintiff's claim is revoked and dismissed.

(1) On the other hand, the Plaintiff 1, 1, 2, and 3 were destroyed by Nonparty 6’s violation of the Forestry Act and the Forestry Act, and the Plaintiff 2,365,00 won was seized as a result of the sale of the said real estate. On the other hand, the Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 2 were not entitled to confiscation from Nonparty 6’s final judgment on the violation of the Forestry Act and the Forestry Act. On the other hand, the Plaintiff 1 and Nonparty 2 were not subject to dispute over the establishment of confiscation and sale of the said real estate. The Plaintiff 2 and Nonparty 7 were no longer entitled to confiscation and sale of the said real estate by Nonparty 6’s testimony of Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 6’s non-party 1 and Nonparty 6’s non-party 7’s non-party 1 and the Defendant’s non-party 2’s non-party 7’s non-party 1 and the Defendant’s non-party 7’s non-party 1 and the non-party 2’s non-party 13 were sold.

(2) If so, since the proceeds from the sale of originals as indicated in the attached list as indicated in the attached list were released from seizure due to the absence of a declaration of confiscation, the defendant should return the proceeds to the plaintiffs who are their owners (the plaintiffs 1,237,349 won 14 won and 1,127,650 won (86 won). However, since the defendant asserted that this item was attached to the plaintiff 1, 237,349 won and 2, the plaintiff 1,127,650 won (86 won) were voluntarily submitted and seized by the non-party 9 and 10, the proceeds from the sale should be returned to the above non-party. Further, since the plaintiff 1 was owned by the non-party 1 and the creditor 11 was seized with a notarial deed with executory power, there was no right to claim the return from the plaintiffs, and the plaintiff 1 did not have any right to claim the proceeds from the sale of originals as stated in the above item 8,359 won.

However, according to the list of seizure of this case (Evidence No. 1) the owner of this case entered Nonparty 1 as Nonparty 9 or Nonparty 10, and the defendant seized this case's original tree and stored two persons subject to seizure. However, as acknowledged earlier, Nonparty 1 was merely a person who was awarded a contract for cutting down from Plaintiff 1, the owner of this case, and Nonparty 1's testimony, Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10 are merely the employees of Plaintiff 1. According to the statement of evidence No. 7-1, 2 (execution Report) and the testimony of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, the owner of this case's attached list, so long as Nonparty 1 is not the plaintiffs, Nonparty 11 was not the owner of this case's claim for seizure and assignment of this case's original tree against Nonparty 1, the owner of this case's original tree is not the owner, but the defendant's assertion that this was not the owner of the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 were not the owner of the plaintiff 1.

(3) Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claims for return of the principal lawsuit against the defendant based on ownership of the proceeds from the sale of this case are well-grounded, this shall be accepted. As such, since the original judgment with the same conclusion is justified, the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and a provisional execution declaration is deemed unnecessary, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of the costs of lawsuit.

Judges Hong Nam-nam (Presiding Judge)