[1] The meaning of "military necessity" under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property and the criteria for its determination

[2] In a case where a military necessity for the requisitioned land arises after the exercise of the right of repurchase, whether the right of repurchase is extinguished (negative)

[3] In a case where a military facility is actually constructed and used, whether the land within the scope necessary for the use of the facility constitutes "when the land becomes unnecessary for military purposes" (negative)

[1] The phrase "when military necessity, which is the requirement for the exercise of the right of repurchase under Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, is extinguished." The phrase "military necessity" is the same as "the need for continuous use by the military" under Article 2 (1) of the same Act. On the other hand, since the necessity for continuous use by the military is an objective requirement for military necessity due to a longer military necessity, the existence of such necessity should be determined by an objective situation, rather than a subjective intention of the military, by the military, whether the military is currently being used and there is a need for continuous use in the future.

[2] Even if the requisitioned person had a redemptive right to purchase the land preferentially because there is no need for military use to continue to use the requisitioned land, if the requisitioned person continues to use the land continuously due to military necessity for the performance of military operations during the period in which he/she did not exercise his/her right and the military needs to continue to use it, the requisitioned person cannot exercise a redemptive right to the requisitioned land. However, even though the requisitioned person did not have a military necessity for the exercise of the right to repurchase at the time when he/she exercises the right to repurchase, it does not constitute any obstacle to the exercise of the right to repurchase already acquired by the requisitioned person, on the ground that it was necessary to continue to use the land continuously due to military necessity, even if the requisitioned person had used it later.

[3] If there are facilities used for military purposes in part of the requisitioned land in a military unit, the land within the necessary scope of the facilities shall not be deemed to fall under "when it becomes unnecessary for military purposes".

[1] Articles 2(1) and 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property / [2] Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitiond Property / [3] Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitiond Property

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da46707 delivered on April 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 1554), Supreme Court Decision 92Da39402 delivered on August 24, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2581), Supreme Court Decision 93Da57674 delivered on September 23, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2790) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da107 delivered on April 28, 1992 (Gong192, 1715) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da25499 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong1992, 93Ha, 1993) 293Da2797939 delivered on June 29, 192 (Gong1992, 293) 297Da297379494 delivered on June 29297, 19792, 29797.

Plaintiff 1 and 25 others (Attorney Jeon Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 20 and four others (Attorney Jeon Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na1999, 2000 delivered on November 12, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the violation of the rules of evidence

원심판결 이유를 기록에 비추어 살펴보면, 원심이 이 사건 각 부동산 중 원심판결 첨부 별지 도면 표시 (쟈), (져), (켜), (텨), (도), (각), (오), (초), (코), (포), (쿄), (툐), (차), (파), (토) 부분 및 원심판결 첨부 별지목록 기재 제7부동산(학곡리 175의 3) 부분과 관련하여 그 판시와 같은 사실을 인정한 조치는 정당하고, 거기에 채증법칙을 위배하여 사실을 오인한 잘못이 없다. 이 점을 지적하는 상고이유는 받아들일 수 없다.

B. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to military necessity under the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property (hereinafter "the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property").

Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures refers to the time when a military necessity becomes unnecessary, which is the requirement for the exercise of the right to repurchase under the provision of Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures. The phrase "military necessity" refers to the time when the need for the purchase of requisitioned property is extinguished, and the phrase "military necessity" refers to the same meaning as "the need for the continued use by the military" as "the need for the continued use by the military" under the provision of Article 2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures. On the other hand, since the necessity for the continued use by the military is an objective requirement for the above military necessity, the existence of such necessity is rather than a subjective intention of the military, and is currently used by the military, and it is necessary to continue to use it in the future (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da9180, Jul. 14, 1992; 92Da39402, Aug. 24, 199

원심이 적법하게 확정한 사실관계에 의하면, 이 사건 각 부동산 중 같은 도면 표시 (쟈), (져), (켜), (텨), (도), (각), (오), (초), (코), (포), (쿄), (툐), (차), (파), (토) 부분 및 같은 목록 기재 제7부동산(학곡리 175의 3) 부분은 수송단중대가 철수한 1982. 9. 말경 이후 원고들에 의하여 이 사건 환매권이 행사된 1991. 4. 17. 또는 1992. 9. 5. 현재 같은 영 내에 있던 군견훈련소에 의하여 사용되지 않은 채 그대로 방치되었다는 것이므로, 원고들이 이 사건 환매권을 행사할 당시의 객관적인 상황으로 보아 군이 군사상 긴요하여 사용하고 있거나 앞으로도 사용할 필요성이 있다고 보기는 어렵다고 할 것이므로, 이와 같은 취지의 원심판결은 정당하고, 거기에 특별조치법상의 '군사상 필요'에 관한 법리오해의 위법이 있다고 할 수 없다. 이 점에 관한 상고이유도 받아들일 수 없다.

C. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for exercise of repurchase rights under special measures

Even if the requisitioned person had a re-purchase right to purchase the land by no military necessity to continue to use the requisitioned land, if the requisitioned person needs to continue to use the land for military operations during the period when he/she exercises his/her right, and the military continues to use the land for military operations, the requisitioned person cannot exercise a re-purchase right to the requisitioned land (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da18562 delivered on February 22, 1991, 92; 92Da107 delivered on April 28, 1992). However, even if the requisitioned person had used the land for military purposes, it does not constitute any obstacle in exercising the re-purchase right to the land already acquired by the requisitioned person, even if he/she had used the land for military purposes.

원심이 적법하게 확정한 사실관계에 의하면, 원고들이 이 사건 환매권을 행사할 당시에는 이 사건 각 부동산 중 같은 도면 표시 (쟈), (져), (켜), (텨), (도), (각), (오), (초), (코), (포), (쿄), (툐) 부분은 수송단중대가 철수한 이래 방치되어 있었는데 1994년 이후에야 비로소 군견훈련소에서 위 각 토지 부분을 사용하기 시작하였다는 것이므로, 원심이 위 각 토지 부분에 대한 환매권 행사 당시에 군사상 필요가 없다고 하여 해당 원고들이 한 이 사건 환매권 행사가 옳다고 본 원심의 판단은 정당하고, 거기에 상고이유에서 내세우는 법리오해 등의 위법이 없다. 상고이유에서 들고 있는 대법원 판결들은 이 사건과 사안을 달리하는 것이거나 이 사건에 적용될 수 있는 것들이 아니다. 이 점을 지적하는 상고이유 역시 받아들일 수 없다.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Plaintiffs 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24

If any facility is used for military purposes in part of the requisitioned land in a military unit, the land within the necessary scope for the facility cannot be deemed as unnecessary for military purposes (see Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu32449, Nov. 28, 1989; 92Da46707, Apr. 27, 1993, etc.).

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is justified in finding that all parts of the above drawings (titles), shocks, and urology are necessary for the military personnel meeting, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, violation of the rule of experience, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the scope of repurchase right, etc.

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

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)