In a case where Gap's heir Eul filed for the cancellation registration procedure against the State for the land remaining in Gap's name according to the decision of the Property Investigation Committee established by the Special Act on the Reversion of Property Pro-Japanese Collaborative to the State, the case holding that the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the State is lawful, in case where Gap's heir Eul filed for the cancellation

In a case where Gap's heir Eul filed a cancellation registration procedure against the State against the State for the land remaining in Gap's name according to the decision of the Property Investigation Committee established by the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State, the case holding that the registration of transfer of ownership in the future of the State is lawful on the ground that Gap's heir Gap received the above land's situation on October 1, 1913, which was after the opening of the Rus/Japan War, and the land was presumed to have been acquired as a compensation for pro-Japanese acts subject to reversion to the State.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (Amended by Act No. 10646, May 19, 201)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Government Law Firm, Attorney Kim Jae-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

November 18, 2011

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Defendant, as the Plaintiff

1. The transfer registration of shares completed on August 31, 2007 under No. 102387, which was completed on August 31, 2007, with respect to the share of 19/21 shares in the land set out in paragraph 1, among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”);

2. The transfer registration of shares completed on July 18, 2007 by the same registry office with respect to shares of 19/21 of the land listed in paragraphs 2 and 4 of this case;

3. Registration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on July 18, 2007 by the same registry office as to the land under paragraph (3) of this case

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

1. Basic facts

(a) Circumstances, inheritance, and preservation of ownership;

(1) The instant land is originally divided into two lands: 615, 947, 950, 950, and 1017, and 588, respectively, (a) both sides of the instant land prior to the subdivision. The land research division of the Japanese land was written on October 1, 1913 by Nonparty 1 that the said land prior to subdivision was inspected.

(2) On May 21, 1949, the non-party 1 died and succeeded to the non-party 2. The non-party 2 died on August 19, 1976, and the non-party 3, the non-party 4 (the non-party 5's wife who died on October 15, 1950), the non-party 6, the non-party 7, the non-party 8, and the non-party 9 jointly succeeded to each inheritance share listed in the attached Table 2 (the non-party 2's remaining children, the non-party 10, the non-party 11, the non-party 4 and the non-party 12 died before the death of the non-party 2, the non-party 4 and the non-party 12 died on October 21, 198, after being declared bankrupt by the Suwon District Court on September 15, 196).

(3) On July 20, 1993, Nonparty 1’s heir, including the Plaintiff, won a lawsuit against the Defendant for ownership verification regarding the instant land and completed registration of ownership preservation.

(4) After that, Nonparty 8-2/21 shares of co-inheritors among the lands in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 of this case were transferred to another person on January 13, 2005.

(b) Determination of reversion to the State by the Property Investigation Commission for Pro-Japanese Collaborators;

(1) The act of friendship of Nonparty 1

The Investigation Committee on Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators established by the Special Act on the Reversion of Property of Pro-Japanese Collaborators to the State (amended by Act No. 7769 of Dec. 29, 2005 and amended by Act No. 7975 of Sept. 22, 2006; hereinafter “Special Act”) recognized the pro-Japanese conduct as follows.

On January 19, 1876, Non-party 1 (Choman omitted) was born into the south of Song-gun on August 19, 1904, and worked as a usual Council member on August 18, 1904 (a representative-friendly organization created in the background and the amount of the Japanese No. 18, August 18, 1904). On June 1, 1914, Non-party 1 (Choman: 1:5) was killed on February 1, 1925, and 1:5 (Choman’s death on April 28, 1921; 1:5 (Choman’s 1:5) was born into the Republic of Korea, and 1.5 (Choman’s 1:6) was appointed as the President of the Korean War, and 1.5 (Choman’s 1:6) was promoted on June 28, 193.

(2) Determination of reversion to the State

On May 2, 2007, the Property Investigation Committee for Pro-Japanese Collaborative Acts of the Republic of Korea decided on May 2, 2007 that "the non-party 1 constitutes pro-Japanese and anti-national actors, and the non-party 1 was recognized as pro-Japanese property. Thus, the land in this case became retroactively owned by the State when the non-party 1 was under the circumstances." Accordingly, the registration of transfer of ownership was made on July 18, 2007 with respect to the land in this case 19/21 out of the land in the name of the non-party 1's heir, and the land in this case 19/21 out of the land in this case 2 and 2 and 3 out of the land in this case and the land in this case 19/21 out of the land in this case under the name of the non-party 1's heir and the land in this case 3 out of the land in this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-8 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

After the non-party 1 succeeded to the act of the court below's response to the plaintiff's act of the court below's death, he was engaged in the activities of the court below's leader and the pro-Japanese corporate management, etc. However, the land of this case was originally owned by the non-party 1, but it was not acquired as a consideration for pro-Japanese behavior.

In particular, Nonparty 1’s father, Nonparty 13 and his spouse’s Jeju-si’s grave had already been on the face of both Korea and Japan before the Russian War, and Nonparty 1 had owned the instant land in this case under the same spawn as his own land. Thus, Nonparty 1 should not be presumed to have acquired ownership only after having obtained the ownership through the land circumstances, and it should not be presumed to have acquired the ownership as the property acquired in return for the pro-Japanese act, which is the subject of the State’s reversion.

Nevertheless, the Defendant should cancel the registration of ownership transfer because Nonparty 1 recognized Nonparty 1’s assessment of the instant land as pro-Japanese property acquisition and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the State.

3. Judgment on the main defense: Non-adopted of a defense;

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case by civil litigation on November 25, 2010 is unlawful, where the plaintiff was notified of May 9, 2007 by the Property Investigation Committee on Pro-Japanese Collaborators' Property, and the plaintiff did not file an administrative appeal or administrative litigation within 90 days.

In light of the fact that pro-Japanese property does not belong to the State only when the Property Investigation Commission makes a decision on the reversion of property to the State, but rather belongs to the State as a matter of course retroactively to the time of the act of causing the acquisition, donation, etc. following the enforcement of a special Act, and that the decision of the Property Investigation Commission on the reversion of property is a quasi-legal administrative act that confirms that the property constitutes pro-Japanese property (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Du13491, Nov. 13, 2008). In addition, it can be determined that the Plaintiff may seek the procedure of cancellation registration against the State that has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of an administrative appeal or administrative litigation, separate from seeking the cancellation of the decision on attribution

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's main defense of safety.

4. Judgment on the merits

A. Provisions of the Special Act

Article 2 (Definitions)

2. The term "property of pro-Japanese and anti-national actors (hereinafter referred to as "property of pro-Japanese")" means the property acquired in return for cooperation with the Japanese colonialism from the opening war to August 15, 1945, in which a person who committed pro-Japanese and anti-national acts committed an infringement of national sovereignty has started, or which has received a legacy or donation, knowing that such property is inherited or that such property is a pro-Japanese property. In such cases, the property acquired by a person who committed pro-Japanese and anti-national acts from the opening war to August 15, 1945 shall be presumed to be the property acquired in return for pro-Japanese act;

Article 3 (Reversion of Property Belonging to Parental State, etc.)

(1) Property of pro-Japanese (including property of pro-Japanese and pro-Japanese which is used, occupied, or managed by the State among property of pro-Japanese and pro-Japanese that is used, occupied, or managed by a foreign embassy or the military in accordance with an international convention, agreement, etc.) shall belong to the State at the time of an act of cause, such as acquisition, donation, etc.: Provided, That the right

(b) Whether real estate assessed by a person who committed pro-Japanese and anti-national acts is presumed as pro-Japanese property and thus, can be reverted to the State;

The term "child-friendly property" subject to the reversion of the State shall also include real estate under the Decree on Land Survey in Japan (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912) or Ordinance on Land Survey in Joseon Forest (Ordinance No. 5 of May 1, 1918) since the date of the War of Russ and the Japanese War of 1904; - September 5, 1905.

This is because our Supreme Court has consistently maintained the following legal principles concerning the validity of the situation in which the Japanese colonial rule has occurred. In other words, the Supreme Court decided that a person under the Land Investigation Ordinance has finally acquired the ownership of the assessment land (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu152 delivered on January 24, 1984), and that the previous rights in conflict with it have become extinct (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da27037 delivered on December 22, 192).

However, the representative pro-Japanese and anti-national actors, such as Ethicalism such as Ethicalism, face-to-face, box, Ethical order, Ethicalism, Goshee, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-young, Lee Jae-young, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-hee, Lee Jae-young, Lee Jae-de, Lee Jae-de, Lee Jae-de, Lee Jae-gu, and Lee use, acquired huge real estate through the Japanese land situation, and it is true that many lots of lots of land remain until now, regardless of whether the Special Act was enforced (see, e.g., Disposition A8, 4, Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na20858, Feb. 4, 2009).

Therefore, the National Assembly established a special law for the reversion of pro-Japanese property to the State after the lapse of a long time, and resolved to revise the legislation proposed to thoroughly achieve the purpose of returning property. The first legislation was that “an act of acquiring pro-Japanese property by pro-Japanese actors (Article 2 of the Legislation Bill)” was null and void. However, according to the text of the legislation, “an act of acquiring pro-Japanese property by pro-Japanese actors” can be interpreted as null and void only for a juristic act to acquire the property by pro-Japanese actors. Therefore, there may be difficult interpretation that the real property acquired by pro-Japanese actors as a public act can be owned by the State through the circumstances of the public act, and ② for example, in a case where a pro-Japanese citizens acquired pro-Japanese property through a legal act after the lapse of a long time, the invalidation of such juristic act would be in violation of the principle of attribution of pro-Japanese property to the private person, which is the object of the special law. Therefore, the National Assembly should be presumed to have been established in the Korean War from the 2nd day of the 19th day of acquisition of property by pro-Japanese.”

In addition, the Constitutional Court decided that each of the above legislative provisions decided that the National Assembly did not violate the Constitution (Supreme Court Decision 2008HunBa141, Mar. 11, 2011; Constitutional Court Decision 2008HunBa141, etc.); the Supreme Court held that the above legislative provisions do not violate the Constitution on the grounds that "the importance of public interest that can be achieved is tension, means, etc. are appropriate, and guarantee the possession of friendly property itself goes against the justice itself (Supreme Court Decision 2009Da26831, May 13, 201, etc.).

Therefore, the land in this case is presumed to be the property acquired in return for the pro-Japanese act subject to reversion to the State by taking into account the circumstances on October 1, 1913, which was after the opening of the Rus and the Japanese War by Nonparty 1, who committed pro-Japanese and anti-national actors.

C. Whether the presumption of pro-Japanese property has been destroyed

(1) Facts acknowledged among the plaintiff's chief executive officer

In the 1936 publication, the following facts are found: (a) the tombstone of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, Nonparty 1, 13, for the purpose of the 1936 publication, read: (b) the tombstone of Nonparty 1, for the first time Non-Party 1, for the 132 grave site before the subdivision of the same spathal; (c) the head of the Gyeonggi-si, for the purpose of Nonparty 1, on December 4, 1952, the record of Nonparty 1’s spathal 897, 146, and 721 of the same Ri, which was the sum 2,107 square meters of the 961stal 2,107 square meters of the same spathal; (b) the record of Nonparty 1’s spathal 1, 1932.

However, the plaintiff's assertion that "the 13th seed in the Han Sungsan had been transferred to the 732 Ham-ri 732 of the same Ham-ri was combined" is not admitted as there is no evidence to the effect that "the 13's seed was transferred to the 197 Ham-ri 732 of the same Ham-ri." (in particular, the Hamsan is included only in the grave location and the Ham-ri direction, and there is no indication as to the Ham-ri.). ② The fact that "the land of this case, other than the above 2 lots, was discussed for Nonparty 1's grandparents before the opening of the Korean War," is inconsistent with it, that is, it is difficult to believe that "the 2 lots which was already established as the Mam-ri-ri 1917 around the 1917."

(2) Determination

(A) Whether the plaintiff's counterclaim is proved:negative

Thus, the above facts cannot be deemed to have proved that it was the opposing fact to reverse the presumption of pro-Japanese property by law, i.e., “Non-party 1 did not acquire the land in this case in return for pro-Japanese act.”

Rather, in light of the fact that Nonparty 1 became a member of the Council of First Instance on August 22, 1904, prior to the assessment of the land in this case (the foregoing recognition), and the fact that Nonparty 1 obtained the instant land as a member of the Council of First Instance on March 3, 1908 at the inner angle of the Japanese colonial rule (the following c), and the fact that Nonparty 1 acquired the instant land in return for the acquisition of friendship after the Korean War, as prescribed by the Special Act, rather than the fact that Nonparty 1 was the member of the Cho Jong-ho, Cho Jong-ho, who was a member of the Council of First Instance on August 22, 1904 (the foregoing recognition), and that he was the member of the Korean War.

(B) The person's origin and friendship;

① On August 20, 1858, Song-in was born between the father, Nonparty 13 and the mother who is a reporter on August 20, 1858, and had a large amount under the luxal luxal lux of 8 years of age, but was replaced by the luxal lux of the luxal lux of the check, and was replaced by the luxal luxal lux of the luxal.

② After that, on March 15, 1871, as a floodgate, he started rice sludge as a floodgate on March 15, 1871. At the Reinforcementdo Treaty (26 February 26, 1876), he was the representative team in Japan, and was in collaboration with the Japanese military payer, opened his superior in order to collect money from credit business and trade. At the time of the Ya-gun (Sae. 19 July 1882), he escaped from the military branch in order for the superior to the Japanese military branch in order to return to the Japanese branch in order to the Japanese branch in order to ensure that he returned to the Japanese branch in order to the Japanese branch in order to ensure that he returned to the Japanese branch in order to the Japanese branch in order to ensure that he returned to the Japanese branch in order to the Japanese branch in order to take the Ya-gun's house.

③ In around 1884, Song Jong-gun was a test on the side of the reputation and the Kim Jong-ok et al., which had been pushed back to Japan, but was a secret to see the deceased Kim-ok et al., who had returned to Korea without any outcome in Japan, and immediately returned to Korea. After the East School, Jin-gun was dispatched to Japan on September 1894 for the transmission axis of the Japanese War, according to Japan as its executing source when he was dispatched to Japan on September 8, 1894, and then the Fran-gun (Y. 8, 1895) did not return to Korea without returning to Korea.

④ After that, the Russ and Japan War (from February 8, 1904 to September 5, 1905) returned to Korea through the interpretation of the Japanese War, and was charged with money from Seoul to the main place of business in Seoul. The Japanese military was engaged in background third-party political activities with the background third-party political activities on August 18, 1904, while organizing the first class of the first class of the first class (name before the opening of the name) with the user’s tool on August 18, 1904.

⑤ During the 1907 1907 1's 1907 1's 1's 1907 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1'''''''''s 1''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''s '''''''.'''''''.'''''''''''''''''.'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

(6) Therefore, 100,000 won, 100,000 won, 10,000 won, Korea Joint Memorial, 10,000 won on August 1, 1912, 191, Korea Joint Memorial, 10,000 won on November 10, 1915, 28, 1920,000 won, 1000 won, 10,000 won, 100 won,000 won, 10,000 won, and 10,0000 won, 10,0000 won, and 10,000 won, 200,000 won, 10,000 won, and 10,000 won, 10,000 won, and 10,000 won, and 10,000 won, which are representative religious organizations.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, evidence as seen earlier, Gap 2, Eul 2, 5, 8, 9, the whole purport of the pleading, and significant facts

5. Conclusion

Therefore, it is justifiable for the Defendant to judge the instant land as pro-Japanese property subject to reversion to the State and transfer registration as owned by the State. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] Indication of Real Estate: Omitted

[Attachment 2] Inheritance Shares: Omitted

Judges Owon-ho