Constitutional Court Rules "'Jeon Du-hwan Recovery Act' Third-Party Property Seizure Provision Constitutional"

Chief Justice Yoo Nam-seok of the Constitutional Court and the justices are waiting for the start of the constitutional review ruling on the unconstitutionality confirmation constitutional complaint regarding the "Announcement of the Korea-Japan Comfort Women Issue Agreement" held on the 27th at the Constitutional Court in Jongno-gu, Seoul. Photo by Kang Jin-hyung aymsdream@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Hyung-min] The Constitutional Court has ruled that the property confiscation provision of the Special Act on Confiscation of Property in Public Official Crimes, commonly known as the 'Jeon Du-hwan Recovery Act,' is not unconstitutional.

On the 27th, the Constitutional Court made a ruling of constitutionality in a constitutional review case requested by the Seoul High Court, which asked for a judgment on the constitutionality of Article 9, Paragraph 2 of the 'Special Act on Confiscation of Property in Public Official Crimes.'

This provision allows for the confiscation of property from third parties who acquired assets knowing they were illegally obtained. It was newly established in July 2013 to recover fines from former President Jeon Du-hwan. The Seoul High Court accepted a constitutional review request filed by Mr. Park, who had his property seized under this provision after purchasing illegally owned assets from former President Jeon.

In 2011, Mr. Park bought 546㎡ of land in Hannam-dong from Jeon Du-hwan's nephew, Lee Jae-hong, for 2.7 billion won. The prosecution, investigating the case, concluded in 2013 that Mr. Park knew the land was illegally owned by former President Jeon at the time of purchase and seized the land under the Jeon Du-hwan Recovery Act. Mr. Park, claiming he was unaware the property was illegal, filed an objection to the seizure with the Seoul High Court and also filed a lawsuit at the Seoul Administrative Court seeking cancellation of the seizure order.