The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

A. Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (hereinafter “Act”), and Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (hereinafter “the Act”), provides that “Japanese property” means the property acquired in return for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism from the opening of the war of the Russian War during which the deprivation of the State’s sovereignty was commenced to August 15, 1945, or received a testamentary gift with the knowledge that the property is inherited or inherited. In this case, the property acquired by the pro-Japanese Collaborators to the Korean War from August 15, 1945 shall be presumed to be the property acquired in return for pro-Japanese act.”

However, Article 1 of the above Act stipulates that the legislative purpose of this Act lies in realizing justice, establishing a national spirit, and realizing the constitutional ideology of the 3.1 movement resistance against the Japanese rule, which is resistanceed against the Japanese rule, by devolving on the property that the anti-national act, who cooperates with the colonial rule of Japanese rule, and who imprisoned our nation, belongs to the State.

On the other hand, even though the land survey project and forest survey project, which is understood as the basis of the creation of ownership in the modern sense, have been implemented after 1910, the above law stipulates the acquisition period of pro-Japanese property as from the opening of the war (1904). This is premised on the fact that pro-Japanese and anti-national actors have already acquired the substantial control over property in cooperation with the evasion of Japanese colonialism before the situation is determined by the land and forest survey project.

Considering the above, the “acquisition” of the property as referred to in the presumption clause of this case is an acquisition of ownership due to a situation through the land and forest survey project.