B. Whether Article 6 (1) and (3) of the same Act violate Article 23 of the Constitution

(b) When the person requisitioned under Article 6 (1) of the same Act fails to sell the requisitioned property to the State, the provision that the Minister of National Defense makes a purchase decision, and the provision that the delivery of securities under Article 12, the payment of cash under Article 12, or the deposit under Article 13, within six months from the date of the decision on purchase under Article 6 (3) of the same Act, shall not be deemed to violate the provisions that the payment of fair compensation should be made under Article 23 of the Constitution.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that each of the real estate in this case was located within the territory of the unit in the judgment and was used as a ammunition facility area up to now, and on the ground, it was installed with a ammunition and an tactical road. As to each of the real estate in this case, there remains military installations up until now so far, and there is a need for military operations, as well as the fact that the city of Busan planned the above part as an apartment construction complex, the above military installation cannot be viewed as no longer necessary for military operations. In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment can be justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Article 1 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property provides that the purpose of this Act is to prescribe matters necessary for purchase, compensation, and cancellation of requisition not later than December 31, 1973 for the property requisitioned at the time of the enforcement of the Requisition Act. The term "compensation" does not mean a payment of purchase price for the purchase of requisitioned property, but it is reasonable in light of the provisions of Article 8 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition that compensates the person requisitioned for the damage caused by the use fee for requisitioned property or the loss of requisitioned property at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property. Thus, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not possible to adopt a theory that the payment of purchase price for the purchase of requisitioned property should be made until December 31, 1973 as its own opinion.

3. When the person requisitioned under Article 6 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property fails to sell the requisitioned property to the State, the provision that the Minister of National Defense requires the person requisitioned under Article 6 (3) of the same Act to purchase the requisitioned property, and the provision that the Minister requires the delivery of securities under Article 12, the payment of cash under Article 13, or the deposit under Article 13 within 6 months from the date of the decision, shall not be deemed to violate the provisions that infringe on property rights under Article 23 of the Constitution and the payment of compensation therefor shall be made in lawful manner (Article 8-3 of the same Act asserts that the purchase price paid to the plaintiffs who were requisitioned in the course of purchasing the requisitioned property under the above Act is not a provision on purchase price, and therefore, it cannot be the premise of the decision).

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)