Disappearance of the Interest in a Quasi-Appeal Where the Return of Seized Property Takes Place During the Lawsuit

1. 01Question

   If, while a quasi-appeal seeking rescission of a disposition by which an investigative agency refused the return of seized property is pending, the investigative agency returns that seized property, does the quasi-appeal remain lawful?

2. 02Holding

   A quasi-appeal seeking rescission of a disposition concerning the return of seized property is a type of appeal litigation and therefore requires an interest; where the purpose has already been accomplished while the lawsuit is pending, it was held that there is no interest and the quasi-appeal is inadmissible. Since the server deck had been returned while the proceedings in the court below were pending, the Supreme Court reversed the part of the court below's decision that had rescinded the refusal to return it, and dismissed the quasi-appeal.

   Points at issue, verbatim

   소송 계속 중 준항고로써 달성하고자 하는 목적이 이미 이루어졌거나 이익이 상실된 경우, 준항고가 부적법하게 되는지 여부(적극)

   Unofficial English translation

   Whether, where during the pendency of the lawsuit the purpose intended to be achieved by means of the quasi-appeal has already been accomplished or the interest has been lost, the quasi-appeal becomes improper (affirmative)

3. 03Disposition

   Reversed and rendered by the Supreme Court Stated in the decision

   이 부분 준항고를 기각한다.

   Unofficial English translation

   The quasi-appeal as to this part is dismissed.

4. 04Form of the test

   Existing test applied Read from the decision

   준항고를 통하여 달성하고자 하는 목적은 이미 이루어졌으므로 이 부분 준항고는 그 이익이 없어 부적법하다

   Unofficial English translation

   Since the purpose intended to be achieved through the quasi-appeal has already been accomplished, this quasi-appeal lacks such interest and is improper

5. 05Factors

   • 수사기관의 압수물 환부에 관한 처분의 취소를 구하는 준항고의 법적 성격(=항고소송)
   • 이익이 있어야 하는지 여부(적극)
   • 준항고로써 달성하고자 하는 목적이 이미 이루어졌거나 이익이 상실된 경우

   Unofficial English translation

   • The legal nature of a quasi-appeal seeking cancellation of a disposition of an investigative agency concerning the return of seized articles is appeal litigation (administrative litigation)

   • Whether an interest must exist (affirmative)

   • Where the purpose intended to be achieved by means of the quasi-appeal has already been accomplished or the interest has been lost

6. 06Relation to precedent

   Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision

   대법원 1999. 6. 14.자 98모121 결정, 대법원 2014. 4. 15.자 2014모686 결정 등 참조

   Unofficial English translation

   see Supreme Court Decision 98Mo121 decided June 14, 1999, Supreme Court Decision 2014Mo686 decided April 15, 2014, etc.

   Decisions referred to

   None listed

7. 07Burden of proof

   Not addressed Not in the decision

8. 08Open question and revisit condition

   If the point of the quasi-appeal was to contest the illegality of the method of execution of a warrant itself in that the return deadline specified in the warrant was exceeded, rather than the immediate use of the seized property, can it be considered that an interest in the quasi-appeal remains even where the return takes place afterwards?

   This reading will be re-examined if the quasi-appeal system under Article 417 of the Criminal Procedure Act is amended, or if a Supreme Court decision takes a different view of the interest in a quasi-appeal against a disposition on the return of seized property.

Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.

Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.