(1)D Seoul Newspaperimage text translation
(2)I’m here in my hometown, but
(3)”Late Law”
(4)Kwak Jinwoong Input 202310261818
(5)Recognition of ownership of Gwaneumsa Temple in Japan
(6)”It is a deprivation, but it has already been transferred over ownership, and the government lost the lawsuit to return the Buseoksa Temple.”
(7)The legalization of the looting of Buseoksa Temple”
(8)日은 환영 불상 조기 반환해야”
(1)D Seoul Newspaperimage text translation
(2)Earlier, nine members of the Korean cultural heritage theft group stole the statue, which was 505 centimeters high and weighs 386 kilograms, stored in Gannonji, Tsushima Island, Japan, in 2012, and was caught by police while trying to dispose of it for 2.2 billion won in Korea. The statue was confiscated by the government and stored at the Daejeon National Research Institute of Cultural HeritageIn response, BSSA filed a lawsuit against the government in 2016, saying, “It was a cultural asset that was deprived when Japanese pirates invaded Goryeo in the past, so it should be returned to the original owners.”
(3)In the first trial, the issue was whether the Seoju Buseoksa Temple in the Goryeo Dynasty and the current Seosan Buseoksa Temple could be viewed as the same place. The first trial court ruled that the Buddha statue was looted in an abnormal way by the Japanese pirates at the time and that it belonged to Buseoksa Temple in January 2017However, after six years of hearing, the second trial court judged in February that the Buddha statue belonged to the ground thesis, saying, “The prescription for acquisition has already been completed.” Under the old civil law of Japan, a person who has occupied another person’s property peacefully and openly for 20 years with the intention of owning it can acquire the ownership The Supreme Court applied Japan’s law where the object was located at the expiration of the acquisition prescription according to the existing international judicial law
The judges’ logic is that the Japanese colonial rule occupied Korea peacefully for 36 years with the intention of owning it, so the acquisition prescription was completed under Japanese law. lol
Korean judges who are buried under the law and make judgments that are far from common sense
You’re just legal engineers