Pro-Japanese Property Inspection Committee to Relaunch: Could Actor Hayoung's Great-Grandfather's Assets Be Confiscated?

As news spreads that a committee to confiscate the assets of pro-Japanese collaborators to the state will be relaunched late this year, various opinions are emerging over who will be targeted, the scope of confiscation, and whether asset recovery is realistically achievable.

The South Korean government previously operated the first Committee for the Inspection of Properties of Pro-Japanese Anti-National Collaborators from 2006 to 2010. At that time, it decided to confiscate to the state 2,359 parcels of land acquired during the Japanese colonial period by 168 pro-Japanese figures, valued at approximately 210.6 billion won.

The second committee, set to begin operations late this year, aims to restore the previously unfinished asset investigation functions, uncover additional hidden assets, and pursue their confiscation.

The standards regarding which pro-Japanese collaborators are subject to asset forfeiture and what accumulated properties are eligible for recovery are relatively clear, as they are explicitly stipulated by law.

Recently, arguments have also surfaced calling for the confiscation of assets belonging to Ahn Sang-ho, the great-grandfather of actor Hayoung, whose past pro-Japanese activities have come under scrutiny and sparked controversy.

However, separate from the revelation of pro-Japanese deeds, whether the case meets the eligibility criteria and asset requirements set forth in the current "Special Act on the Confiscation of Properties of Pro-Japanese Anti-National Collaborators" (hereinafter the Special Act) must be carefully examined.

The confiscation of pro-Japanese assets took place over four years following the enactment of the Special Act and the establishment of the asset inspection committee in 2006.

According to "Four Years of Footsteps in Investigating Pro-Japanese Assets," published by the committee in 2010, pro-Japanese anti-national collaborators defined as subjects of asset forfeiture were broadly divided into "collaborators under the provisions of the Special Act" and "collaborators determined by committee decision."

Collaborators under the Special Act include: those who concluded or conspired in treaties infringing upon national sovereignty; those who received or inherited peerage titles for meritorious deeds in the annexation of Korea (later expanded to "those who received or inherited peerage titles from the Japanese Empire"); those who served as members of the House of Peers or the House of Representatives of the Imperial Diet of Japan; and those who served as vice chairman, advisors, or councilors of the Jungchuwon (Privy Council) under the Japanese Government-General of Korea.

However, exceptions are made if an individual rejected or returned the title, or later actively participated in the independence movement, leading to an exclusion decision by the committee.

Even if an individual does not fall under the statutory categories of the Special Act, the committee could designate them by decision if their pro-Japanese actions were deemed exceptionally grave—such as killing, executing, abusing, arresting, or ordering/directing such actions against those who participated in independence or anti-Japanese resistance movements or their family members—among figures identified under the "Special Act to Inspect Truth for Anti-National Acts Under Japanese Occupation."

Pro-Japanese assets subject to state forfeiture must satisfy both formal and substantive requirements.

The formal requirement is chronological: the asset must have been acquired by the pro-Japanese collaborator between the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War (1904) and national liberation on August 15, 1945.

To this, the substantive requirement is added: the asset must have been acquired "as remuneration for cooperating with imperial Japan."


However, proving the compensatory nature of pro-Japanese activities from today's vantage point is challenging.

Taking this into account, the Special Act contains a provision stating that "property acquired by a pro-Japanese anti-national collaborator between the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War—when the deprivation of national sovereignty began—and August 15, 1945, is presumed to be property acquired as remuneration for pro-Japanese acts," allowing assets to be deemed pro-Japanese property unless the party concerned presents counter-evidence.

If descendants inherit pro-Japanese property or receive it through testamentary gift (bequest) or donation while knowing it is pro-Japanese property, it remains subject to state confiscation.

However, if a third party acquired it in good faith or for fair compensation, it cannot be confiscated.

Instead, individuals who disposed of pro-Japanese property are deemed to have infringed on state ownership and gained unjust enrichment, requiring the proceeds to be recovered.

Under these standards, the committee decided over its four years of operation to confiscate 2,359 parcels of land from 168 pro-Japanese collaborators to the state.

In addition, it issued determinations of pro-Japanese property for 116 parcels that had already been sold to third parties.

These combined parcels amounted to a total market value of 237.3 billion won at the time.

Among pro-Japanese figures, the individual subject to the largest confiscation decision was Marquis Yi Hae-seung.

A confiscation decision was rendered for 192 parcels among his assets, valued at approximately 32.2 billion won.

Furthermore, 14 parcels valued at about 22.9 billion won, which had been sold by his descendants after the enforcement of the Special Act, were determined to be pro-Japanese property and ordered for forfeiture as unjust enrichment.

Regarding the representative "traitor to the nation" Yi Wan-yong, 16 parcels valued at around 170 million won were designated for state confiscation.

However, a decision for forfeiture did not automatically mean all properties were reverted to the state.

This was because dissatisfied descendants filed lawsuits.


According to "Four Years of Footsteps in Investigating Pro-Japanese Assets," a total of 72 administrative lawsuits had been filed as of June 23, 2010, by descendants contesting the forfeiture of their properties.

The descendants initiated litigation arguing: presuming all assets acquired by pro-Japanese collaborators during the colonial period to be pro-Japanese property violates the principle against excessive restriction; confiscation is excessive because descendants took part in the independence movement; and peerage titles were not granted in recognition of merits for the annexation of Korea.

In particular, the descendants of Yi Hae-seung engaged in prolonged litigation against the government.

Descendants of Yi Hae-seung contended that "the grandfather was granted the title of marquis simply because he was a member of the imperial family of the Korean Empire, not because of any meritorious service toward the annexation of Korea," arguing that he did not constitute a "pro-Japanese anti-national collaborator" under the Special Act.

The court ultimately accepted this argument, and in 2010, the confiscation decision for all 192 parcels was overturned.

Amid public backlash over this ruling, the National Assembly amended the law to remove the clause requiring "merits in the annexation of Korea."

Applying the revised law, the government filed another lawsuit against Yi Hae-seung's descendants for the transfer of ownership registration.

However, in 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that only one parcel (4 square meters) that had not originally been subject to confiscation must be returned to the state, citing a proviso in the supplementary provisions of the amended act stating that "the amended law shall not apply to cases where a final and conclusive judgment determined that the act did not apply."

Lawsuits concerning existing confiscation decisions and newly identified pro-Japanese assets are currently being pursued by the Ministry of Justice.

According to the "2025 Justice Yearbook," the Ministry of Justice took over and litigated a total of 95 lawsuits from the committee, winning 92 of them (including partial victories, representing a win rate of approximately 97%).

In addition to the lawsuits transferred from the committee, the Ministry of Justice filed eight separate lawsuits over suspected pro-Japanese lands newly identified through 2022, securing final rulings in favor of the state (including partial victories) in seven of them.

In 2024, the Supreme Court En Banc dismissed arguments by descendants of pro-Japanese collaborators that "the statute of limitations for the sales proceeds or compensation of pro-Japanese property had expired," ruling such claims an abuse of rights.

Consequently, the Ministry of Justice filed lawsuits over lands previously withheld due to the expiration of the statute of limitations, including an unjust enrichment return claim for 7.8 billion won received by descendants of Yi Hae-seung after selling land last year.

The Special Act contains a provision stating that pro-Japanese assets confiscated by the state should be used preferentially for persons of distinguished service to independence.

According to the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, the cumulative fund raised through the sale of pro-Japanese property to date stands at approximately 124 billion won, which the ministry uses to fund support projects for bereaved families of independence patriots.

However, according to a 2025 report by the National Assembly Budget Office titled "Fiscal and Institutional Reform Tasks for Strengthening the Treatment of Persons of Distinguished Service to Independence," lackluster sales of pro-Japanese properties have made sound management of the fund difficult.

Proceeds from land sales dropped from 5.7 billion won in 2021 and 15.3 billion won in 2022 to just 900 million won in 2023 and 1.8 billion won in 2024.

Conversely, living support grants for bereaved families of independence patriots have been executed at around the 90 billion won range annually since 2022.

To cover the shortfall, approximately 90 billion won is being transferred each year from the general account.

An official from the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs explained, "Lands already incorporated into state ownership, such as sites for weather observation stations, are managed by their respective ministries, and many parcels are subject to statutory sales restrictions, such as forests and water quality preservation zones. The Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs currently holds properties that are in remote locations and do not sell easily."

According to the Ministry of Government Legislation, the Special Act amended in June of this year and set to take effect on December 3 aims to reconstitute the pro-Japanese property inspection committee and resume its activities.

The revised act specifies not only pro-Japanese property itself but also proceeds derived from property disposal as targets for confiscation, thereby reducing the likelihood of concealing assets.

Although efforts were previously made to recover proceeds as unjust enrichment when descendants sold property, the new amendment explicitly codifies this in the legal text to establish clearer legal grounds.

It also introduces reward provisions for citizens who discover and report pro-Japanese property, encouraging public participation in uncovering hidden assets.

Minister of Justice Jeong Seong-ho previously stated, "Once the second committee launches, it is expected that at least 32.5 billion won worth of pro-Japanese property can be confiscated."

According to the Ministry of Justice, the 32.5 billion won mentioned by Minister Jeong represents the combined 2025 officially assessed land value of a total of 115 parcels for which tips or civil petitions were received, but lawsuits could not yet be filed due to limits on the ministry's authority to conduct direct investigations or secure necessary records.

The Ministry of Justice explained, "The current Special Act grants investigative authority to the committee, whereas the Ministry of Justice only has the power to request cooperation from relevant agencies to the extent necessary for conducting litigation. Because the Ministry of Justice lacks dedicated personnel and an organizational branch to investigate pro-Japanese property professionally, there were limits to confiscation under the current method of reviewing individual properties to file lawsuits."

The ministry added, "As legal principles that were not yet established during the first committee's tenure have since been solidified through the courts, the second committee is expected to investigate, uncover, and examine the confiscation of additional pro-Japanese assets from a different perspective based on these judicial precedents."

Some are also wondering whether the family assets of actor Hayoung, whose great-grandfather has been engulfed in pro-Japanese controversy, could be confiscated under the law.

However, the prevailing view is that confiscation remains uncertain.

Lee Jun-sik, former president of the Independence Hall of Korea, anticipated, "In addition to the established criteria, pro-Japanese anti-national collaborators can also be designated if the committee determines they committed grave pro-Japanese anti-national acts. If the committee deems it necessary, it could investigate Ahn Sang-ho. However, judging by past standards, designation could prove difficult."

Another history scholar also noted, "Even if specific pro-Japanese actions of an individual are cited, proving that wealth was accumulated as remuneration for pro-Japanese acts may not be easy due to difficulties in securing evidence."
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.