(b) The method and time limit of exercising the redemptive right under Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property ( December 27, 1993).

B. According to Article 2 (2) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property (amended by December 27, 1993), the person subject to requisition or his/her heir may exercise the right of repurchase only when he/she or his/her heir pays to the National Treasury an amount calculated by adding an interest of 5 percent per annum to the price at the time of purchase of securities from the year of issuance to the year of redemption. The period during which the right of repurchase can be exercised shall be three months from the date of receipt of such notice when the Minister of National Defense has given notice under Article 2 (3) and Article 20 (3) of the Addenda to the same Act. However, if there was no notice of the Minister of National Defense, the fact that the right of repurchase under Article 2 of the Addenda to the same Act is considered to be able to exercise the right of repurchase mutually for a person whose right of repurchase has expired due to the lapse of the exclusion period, and in light of balance between the cases where the Minister of National Defense has given notice, it is reasonable to deem that the right of repurchase would last be exercised.

The case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. In order to exercise the right of repurchase under Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Re-Owned Property (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the Minister of National Defense has already established a right of repurchase under Article 20 of the Act prior to December 31, 1983, but the said right has not been used for military purposes even after the date of January 1, 1984, and is currently unnecessary. It does not necessarily require the Minister of National Defense to give another right of repurchase under the control of the Ministry of National Defense. The purport of the provision of Article 2 of Addenda to the Act is that the State is no longer necessary to give another right of repurchase to the person subject to requisition because it is not easy for the person subject to requisition to exercise the right of repurchase because of the nature of the military relationship where it is not easy for the Minister of National Defense to access the right of repurchase, and thus, it cannot be seen that there is no need for the Minister of National Defense to exercise the right of repurchase under the control of the Ministry of National Defense to exercise the right of repurchase on the ground that there is no need to exercise the right of repurchase.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that held to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for repurchase right occurrence, nor in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the management status of the land subject to notice and repurchase by the Minister of National Defense, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the causes of repurchase right due to the lack of

2. Meanwhile, according to Article 2 (2) of the Addenda to the Act, the person requisitioned or his/her heir may exercise the right of repurchase only when he/she pays to the National Treasury an amount calculated by adding an annual interest of 5 percent to the price at the time of purchase by the State from the year of issuance of securities to the year of repurchase. The period during which the said right of repurchase may be exercised shall be three months from the date of receipt of the notice to the Minister of National Defense pursuant to Article 2 (3) and Article 20 (3) of the Addenda to the Act. However, if there is no notice from the Minister of National Defense, the right of repurchase under Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act shall be considered as consideration for re-exercise the right of repurchase to the person whose right of repurchase is extinguished after the lapse of the exclusion period, and in light of a balance between the cases where the Minister of National Defense is notified, it shall be reasonable to deem that the right of repurchase should be finally exercised until March 31, 1996.

However, the court below held that the redemption period is extended at least by December 31, 195, with the purport that Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act extends the redemption period for requisitioned property which satisfies the actual requirements for repurchase, and that the redemption right holder does not necessarily have to accept the redemption price in reality, and it is sufficient that the government, like the provision of performance, must notify the completion of the preparation for redemption and notify the receipt thereof if the defendant refuses to receive the redemption in advance, and that it is not necessary to deposit it without any need to deposit it. Furthermore, in the case where the creditor's refusal to receive it is obvious and the creditor's intention to refuse to receive it is not likely to change it, in light of the circumstances of the decision, even if the plaintiffs offer the redemption price, it is clear that the defendant did not have an intention to receive it, and it was judged that the exercise of the right of repurchase of this case is valid for the reason that the defendant did not have to change the purport before it becomes final and conclusive. This decision of the court below is unfair since it stated in the above legal principles.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the above legal principle that the repurchase right shall not be exercised unless the amount under Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the Act is paid in advance, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)