Effect of judgment of confiscation under the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act.

The effect of the judgment of confiscation of a ship under the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act is only to the defendant who has been sentenced guilty of the facts that constitute the cause of confiscation, and it is reasonable to view that the effect of the judgment can not be effective even to the owner of the confiscated ship.

Article 211 of the Civil Act, Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da2080 decided Dec. 20, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 14 ② ② 348; Decision 211(18) 311 Decided Jan. 24, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 1072; Decision 211(19) of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff

Countries

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (69A715)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall deliver the ship listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

On December 27, 1968, Nonparty 1 was sentenced to a summary order on January 5, 1969 as stated in the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act with a fine of KRW 15,000 and a summary order on the confiscation of a ship as stated in the claim from the Busan District Court’s Tong case of violation of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, and as to the fact that the Defendant occupied the above ship based on this, there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, in full view of the contents and the testimony of the above witness, the above vessel was owned by the Plaintiff and lent it to Nonparty 2 on April 5, 1968, and was tried as above by Nonparty 1, the captain, without permission, by using it.

Therefore, the judgment of confiscation against the non-party 1 does not have any effect on the plaintiff's ownership of the above ship. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver it to the plaintiff. Thus, even if the above ship was owned by the plaintiff and lent it to the plaintiff, the above judgment is effective to the plaintiff, and even if it is not a domestic work, since the plaintiff requested delivery of the above ship within 3 months as stipulated in Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act after the public prosecutor's order was executed. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff knew of the situation such as the defendant's owner in leasing the above ship. In light of the provisions of Articles 47 and 483 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the execution of the judgment of confiscation against the ship is not completed at the time of the completion of the public sale procedure, and since the public prosecutor's execution procedure on the above ship is not yet completed, it can not be said that the execution of the above order was completed within the above public sale procedure, and it can not be said that the plaintiff's request for delivery of the above domestic work.

Therefore, all of the defendant's arguments are without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection based on ownership is justified and it is not attached to the provisional execution declaration. Therefore, the original judgment is justified and it is decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)

Park Young-do unable to be named as a whole;