(b) The meaning of "where the property to be sold under the provisions of paragraph (1) has occurred" in Article 20-2 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property;

B. The provision of Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, unlike the provision of Article 20 of the same Act, is not a provision that the State can sell the requisitioned property, the repurchase period of which has expired under a negotiated contract to the person requisitioned, notwithstanding the provision of the State Property Act. If the person requisitioned is not recognized as a preferential right to purchase, it is reasonable to deem that Article 20-2 (2) of the former Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition requires that the person requisitioned or his/her heir without delay be notified of the "where the property to be sold under paragraph (1) has occurred" in Article 20-2 (2) of the former Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, even though it is not "when the property to be sold under paragraph (1) has occurred," but it should be notified to the purport that "the property to be sold is sold under a negotiated contract to the person requisitioned or his/her heir under paragraph (1)."

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

On the first and third grounds for appeal

The judgment of the court below which held that the defendant purchased six parcels (the old parcel number before the two mergers) from the plaintiff in cash on July 2, 1962 and September 17, 1968 among the land in this case, from the plaintiff, of the Seo-gu in Gwangju-si ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), ( Address 3 omitted), ( Address 4 omitted), ( Address 5 omitted), ( Address 5 omitted), and ( Address 6 omitted).

However, Article 20-2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property stipulates that "the requisitioned property purchased under this Act" shall be "the purpose of legislation and the statement of evidence No. 5 is to purchase the requisitioned property prior to the enforcement of the Act in accordance with this Act and to allow sale of the requisitioned property by a private contract in consideration of the fact that the requisitioned was disadvantaged, such as payment of purchase price as securities, etc., so the above provision shall apply only to requisitioned property purchased under the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitiond Property.

However, in light of the fact that the above six parcels of land had already been purchased by the defendant prior to January 1, 1970 when the Act on the Special Measures was enacted, it is clear that the above six parcels of land is not requisitioned property under the Act on the Special Measures. Thus, the recognition of such purchase by the court below is merely for the purpose of a speech-making that the above parcels of land are not requisitioned property purchased under the Act on the Special Measures, and it does not affect the conclusion of the purchase. Thus, there is no need to further examine the above points of dispute.

On the second ground for appeal

Unlike the provisions of Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, Article 20-2 of the same Act provides that the State may sell requisitioned property, the repurchase period of which has expired, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act, and that the State does not recognize a preferential purchase right to the requisitioned person by a free contract (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690 delivered on October 22, 1991). If the requisitioned person is not recognized a preferential purchase right to the requisitioned person, then Article 20-2 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property (amended by Act No. 4618 delivered on December 27, 1993), the State shall immediately notify the requisitioned person or his/her heir of the property "if the property subject to sale has occurred under the provisions of paragraph (1), the State shall notify the requisitioned person or his/her heir of the sale of the property by a free contract under the provisions of paragraph (1)."

Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just, and contrary to this, if the property subject to sale under paragraph (1) is subject to preferential purchase for the property subject to sale under paragraph (1) on the premise that the person subject to requisition, etc. has a preferential right to purchase, the opinion that the person subject to requisition, etc. should always be notified under paragraph (2) cannot be accepted. Thus, the court below's decision cannot be accepted by misapprehending the legal principles as to interpretation of Article 20-2

There is no reason for this issue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)