the time of occurrence of the claim for compensation payment to the State of a person who reported any of the following State property;

claim for compensation to the State of a person who reported any of the following State property shall be based on the condition that the term "the confirmation of the status of the State property" in relation to the property reported by such report shall be the condition precedent, or "the confirmation of the status of the State property" means the confirmation or confirmation of the status of the State property by the head of the agency in receipt of the following State property is insufficient, and the reported property shall be objectively confirmed as state

Article 6 of the Addenda to the State Property Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1851 delivered on November 2, 1972

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant ○○○○ is examined.

Article 6 of the Addenda of the State Property Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1965.12.30) provides that a person who has reported the following State property may be paid compensation under the conditions as prescribed by the Presidential Decree. The main text of Article 5 (3) of the Addenda of the Enforcement Decree of the said Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1966.28, Feb. 28, 196) provides that "if the head of the pertinent government office receives a report of the following State property, he shall pay an amount equivalent to 20 percent of the value of the property after the confirmation of the fact that the property is the State property." The right to claim compensation for the State of the person who has reported the following State property under the Addenda of the said Enforcement Decree to the effect that it was generated under the conditions of suspension of the State property, or that the person who has reported the above state property under the condition of suspension of its right to claim compensation for the reason that it was a final and conclusive statement of the facts that it was an unlawful report and its use of the property under the jurisdiction of the State property.

Therefore, according to the unanimous opinion of all participating judges, it is decided in accordance with Article 400, Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Doh-won (Presiding Justice) Doh-dong and Kim Dong-dong Dok Kim, Kim Jong-chulng, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-chul