Confiscation under the Fisheries Act and the right to request delivery of the original owner who has not been sentenced thereto;

Since the judgment of confiscation only takes effect against the person who has been convicted of the facts which caused the confiscation, the owner of the land has no effect, so it should be handed over to the owner unless it falls under the destruction.

Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (Ordinance No. 1636), Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da766 delivered on July 24, 1970

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court (69A946)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

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

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).

The original judgment 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.

Non-party 1, as a listed list, was charged with the violation of the Fisheries Act on February 7, 1969, and was served with a summary order on April 3, 1969 that was imposed on the defendant's 20,000 won and the vessel of this case. The fact that the summary order became final and conclusive on May 11, 1969 is an official document of No. 1 (the summary Order) in which there is no dispute between the parties and no dispute over the establishment, and thus, the testimony of Non-party 2 is presumed to have been established by the testimony of Non-party 2 of the court below, comprehensively taking account of the testimony of the above non-party 2 of the above witness, the vessel of this case is owned by the plaintiff on March 20, 196 by the non-party 1 who registered the owner as the plaintiff on the vessel registry on March 20, 196, and is subject to the above summary order as a fine of the non-party 1 as above.

As to the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's ship is the plaintiff's owned ship, the confiscation in the case of violation of the Fisheries Act is different from the confiscation in nature from the confiscation in the Criminal Act, and the ship in this case is confiscated to the State in accordance with Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, and the owner's ownership is lost. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is asserted that the plaintiff's claim is groundless. However, the judgment of confiscation is only effective against the non-party 1, who is the defendant who was convicted of facts causing confiscation, and it cannot be effective against the plaintiff, who is the owner of the confiscated ship, and according to Article 484 of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the person who has legitimate right to the confiscation requests the delivery of the confiscated goods within 3 months after the execution of confiscation, the prosecutor must deliver the confiscated goods unless they are destroyed or discarded, and even if it was finalized, the defendant is obligated to deliver the above confiscated goods to the plaintiff who is the legitimate owner. Therefore, the defendant's allegation is groundless.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for delivery of the ship of this case is justified, and the judgment below is just and the defendant's appeal is groundless.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the decision in accordance with Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)