(b) Soviet compensation criteria stipulated in Article 21 of the Requisition Act: Provided, That the assessment and adjustment of the compensation requirement rate by the Deliberation Committee on Compensation for Requisition;

It is only one standard in B, and the court is not bound to calculate the objective value of the requisitioned subject matter.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

However, according to Articles 71(2) and 71(1) of the Budget and Accounts Act, the rights of the State as the rights to payment of money shall be extinguished when they are not exercised for five years only if they are not prescribed by other Acts. In the case of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for requisition compensation, Article 23 of the Requisition Act, which falls under the above other Acts, provides that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for requisition compensation shall expire when it is not exercised for five years from the expiration date of the public notice of the performance of the compensation by the Minister of National Defense under Article 22 of the same Act, and it is particularly stipulated that the starting date of the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for requisition compensation of this case which aims at the plaintiff's payment of money to the government, the extinctive prescription of the right to claim for requisition compensation of this case shall be excluded from the provisions of Article 23 of the Requisition Act, which are the basic rights of the people, and Article 71 of the Budget and Accounts Act which is disadvantageous to the people shall be excluded from the provisions of Article 271 of the plaintiff's Budget and Accounts Act.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

However, with respect to the compensation for any requisitioned subject matter, a reasonable compensation for the requisitioned subject matter shall be made in accordance with Article 20(3) of the Constitution, and this means not only the purport that the subject matter should complete the objective value of the requisitioned subject matter, but also that the subject matter shall not be subject to any restriction on the time, method, etc. of compensation (Supreme Court Decision 67Da1334 delivered on November 2, 1967). The compensation criteria provided for in Article 21 of the Requisition Act are merely one basis for the assessment of the compensation rate and the adjustment thereof at the Deliberation Committee on Compensation for Requisition, and the court cannot be deemed to be a limitation provision for the calculation of the objective value of the requisitioned subject matter. Thus, in calculating the fee for the use of the requisitioned subject matter of this case, the court below cannot be deemed to be unlawful, as a result of the appraiser's appraisal of the subject matter, the objective value of the requisitioned subject matter of this case shall not be deemed to be unlawful.

The paper is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs of the appeal, except for the Circuit, Na-le, and Do-dong.

The separate opinion by the judge of the Supreme Court and the vice versa by the judge of the Supreme Court, and the dissenting opinion by the Nale is as follows.

The separate opinion of judges of the Supreme Court is as follows. It is difficult for the Minister of National Defense to determine and adjust the rate of compensation by establishing the council for compensation (Article 24(1) of the Act) with respect to compensation for the following reasons. The standard for compensation is based on Article 21 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, and the tax base being the standard for compensation should be determined (Article 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act) with regard to the determination of the compensation amount under Article 13 of the Act (Article 11 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act) and the determination of the compensation amount under the above Article 16 of the Act. The Minister of National Defense, regardless of the period and time of the determination of the compensation amount under Article 21 of the Act and the period of the compensation amount under Article 29 of the Act, shall not be deemed to have run within 10 days prior to the expiration of the new provision regarding the compensation amount under Article 36 of the Act (Article 22 of the Act). The extinctive prescription shall not be deemed to have run within 16 years prior to the expiration of the period of the foregoing determination.

However, in this case, the plaintiff filed a claim for compensation from June 30, 1950 to December 31, 1968 as compensation for the requisitioned subject matter, and the defendant asserted that the five years prior to the institution of the principal suit under Article 71 of the Budget and Accounts Act had expired five years prior to the institution of the principal suit. On or before November 2, 1967, the Supreme Court's decision (67Da1334 case) which sentenced the above Supreme Court's decision (67Da1334 case) was held before November 2, 1967, which decided that the compensation compensation decision by the Ministry of National Defense is the requirement for establishing the claim for compensation, the existence of such decision is an immediate obstacle to the claim for compensation, and it cannot be said that the extinctive prescription has run as long as the above decision was in a situation where it was impossible to exercise the claim for compensation before the abolition of the previous decision, and it is not reasonable to regard the defendant's right to claim compensation from 15 years prior to the removal of the extinctive prescription.

The Supreme Court Judge Do-dong, and the dissenting opinion of B-L shall be as follows:

In this case, the part of the statement that the right to claim compensation for requisition is not exercised within five years from the expiration date of the period of public notice under Article 22 of the Requisition, as stated in the majority opinion among the reasons stated in the separate opinion of the Supreme Court Justices 19. However, as stated in the Supreme Court Decision 67Da1334 Decided November 2, 1967, the right to claim compensation for requisition should be deemed to run at the same time when the right to claim compensation can be exercised at the same time regardless of the establishment of the right to claim compensation regardless of the public notice of the Minister of National Defense in the decision-making of the requisition Compensation Council, and the objective interpretation of the right to claim compensation for requisition should be limited to the right to claim compensation for requisition which has been completed at least 64Da1491 Decided February 9, 1965, and the Supreme Court Decision 64Da239 Decided June 30, 196, which did not have any objective interpretation of the law, and thus, it cannot be seen that the above decision of the Supreme Court Decision 637Da137.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-dong and Kim Jong-dong Dog-dong and Kim Jong-dong Dog-Jakngng, Kim Jong-gu, Kim Young-gu, Hong-han, Kim Young-han, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young, Kim Jong-young