The extent of res judicata effect of the criminal forfeiture judgment

Even though a judgment of forfeiture of a ship has become final and conclusive in a criminal judgment, the res judicata of such judgment shall not extend to a person other than the defendant in the criminal judgment.

Article 48 of the Criminal Act

Plaintiff

Korea

Gwangju District Court Decision 73Gahap140 decided Jan. 1, 200

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

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

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (1).

The judgment of the first instance 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.

If the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (a certified copy of each judgment) are combined with each other's whole purport of the party's pleading without dispute for each establishment, the ship of this case as stated in the claim is the plaintiff's ownership;

In violation of the Customs Act that Nonparty 1, who was the captain of the above vessel, used the above vessel for transporting smugglings, the above vessel was seized as the case, and Nonparty 1 was prosecuted for the above case on July 28, 1972, and at the same time sentenced to a stay of execution for two years in imprisonment with prison labor for the above support, at the same time, was sentenced to a stay of execution for two years, and the above judgment was sentenced, and the confiscation of the above vessel became final and conclusive, and the fact that the above vessel was currently occupied by the Defendant after its seizure can be acknowledged, and there is no other data to decide on the above recognition.

Although the defendant's litigation performer asserts that it is against the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment to bring a lawsuit again after the judgment of confiscation of the above ship became final and conclusive, the above criminal judgment does not have any effect on the plaintiff except the non-party 1, who was the second one, and therefore, the court of confiscation of the above ship does not have any influence on the plaintiff's exercise of rights to the ship of this case, and the criminal judgment and civil judgment are different from each other under the legal system, so the above defense cannot be accepted. Thus, in this case where the defendant does not prove the right to possess the ship of this case, the defendant has a duty to deliver the ship of this case to the plaintiff who is the owner, and therefore the plaintiff's claim to bring this action is justified, and therefore the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and the provisional execution shall not be attached. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge)