Confiscation in the criminal judgment against a ship, and the owner's right to claim delivery of the ship.

It is reasonable to view that the judgment of confiscation of a ship under Article 199 (1) of the former Customs Act (Act No. 600 of April 10, 61) will only be effective against the defendant who has been convicted of the facts that caused the confiscation, and it shall not be effective against the owner of the confiscated ship.

Article 199 of the Customs Act, Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Countries

Gwangju High Court Decision 66Na369 delivered on September 27, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

In the judgment of the defendant case against the non-party in violation of the Customs Act, even though the judgment to confiscate the plaintiff's main ship from the non-party under Article 199 subparagraph 1 of the Customs Act became final and conclusive, it shall be reasonable to view that the judgment of confiscation only takes effect against the non-party who was convicted of the facts causing the confiscation, and it shall not take effect against the plaintiff to the non-party who was the owner of the confiscated ship who was not the defendant in the criminal case, and the non-party who was the owner of the confiscated ship could not have any opportunity to defend in the case. Accordingly, the plaintiff's exercise of the right to the ship of this case shall not have any influence on the plaintiff, and such interpretation shall be affirmed in light of the provisions of Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, there is no reason to criticize the original judgment

Therefore, the appeal is without merit, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court Dog-gu (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-gu Mag-gu