Whether Article 20-2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property is unconstitutional or not.

Since the provisions of Article 20-2 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property takes into account the fact that the person subject to requisition has been disadvantaged during the purchase of and compensation for the property subject to requisition, the State's provision of the State Property Act to allow the person subject to requisition or his/her heir to sell the property subject to requisition by free contract notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act does not recognize the right of repurchase (right of preferential purchase). In the case of sale by free contract, other than in the case of exercise of the right of repurchase, the provision that allows the person subject to requisition or his/her heir to sell the property at the market price at the time of sale cannot be deemed to violate the provisions that prohibit fundamental infringement of fundamental rights under Article 37

Articles 20(1), 20-2(1), 37 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, and Article 37 of the Constitution

Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong3988Gong1991, 2812)

A school foundation and a private teaching institute

The request for proposal concerning the unconstitutionality of Article 20-2(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property is dismissed as follows.

93Dahap977 Registration of transfer of land ownership

Plaintiff Educational Institution of Songwon

Defendant Republic of Korea and four others

It is proposed that the adjudication on the constitutionality of Article 20-2(1) of the Text-keeping Act is made with respect to the above case.

Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, when the whole or part of the relevant property has become unnecessary for military purposes within five years before the redemption of the securities paid with the purchase price for the requisitioned property purchased under this Act is terminated or within five years after the redemption of the securities is terminated, the person requisitioned or his heir (hereinafter referred to as the "repurchasingr") may purchase the securities with priority.

In such a case, the repurchase right holder shall pay to the National Treasury the amount calculated by adding the interest of five percent per annum to the price at the time of purchase of securities from the year of issuance to the year of repurchase. According to Article 20-2(1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 4144 of Dec. 21, 1989) of the same Act, the State may sell all or part of the pertinent property at the market price at the time of sale by a negotiated contract, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act, if it is no longer necessary for military purposes after five years have passed from the date the redemption of the securities paid for the purchase price of requisitioned property purchased under this Act was completed.

Therefore, the applicant for the right to repurchase under Article 20-2 (1) of the above Act shall pay the purchase price of the requisitioned property to the project operator for five years after the expiration of the redemption period of the securities ordered under Article 20-2 (1) of the Act, and the sale price under the private contract shall be deemed unconstitutional within five years, and the repurchase price shall be determined at the time of sale despite full compensation at the time of requisition. However, if the repurchase right is granted despite the fact that the sale price was made under Article 20-1 of the Constitution, the repurchase right shall not be emphasized so long as the "full compensation" is not realized due to various restrictions or actual operation under the Constitution, notwithstanding the provision of the "Justifiable Compensation" under Article 20-2 (1) of the Act, the purchaser of the land shall be entitled to purchase price at the time of sale at the time of sale at the time of purchase at the time of sale at the time of sale at the time of sale at the time of sale at the time of sale at the time of sale at the same time, and there is no need for re-sale of the new provision of Article 2 of the Act.

Therefore, the right of repurchase under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property is recognized only when it satisfies the requirements of Article 20(1) of the same Act, and thereafter the right of repurchase shall be deemed extinguished. Provided, That the provisions of Article 20-2(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitiond Property shall be paid the purchase price and compensation for requisitioned property as securities under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitiond Property until December 31, 1973, and the interest rate on redemption shall be equal to and equal to 10 years after the date of issuance of securities, and it shall be at least 5 percent per annum if the State sells the requisitioned property after the termination of the right of repurchase, taking into account the fact that there is no disadvantage of the person subject to requisition at the market price after the expiration of the right of repurchase, and it is not recognized that the right of repurchase purchased at the time of sale within 10 years after the expiration of the right of repurchase purchased at the time of sale from the date of termination of the right of repurchase, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act.

Therefore, the applicant's application of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Go-ok (Presiding Judge)