A. Whether a military official constitutes a facility necessary for military purposes (affirmative) and whether the land within the scope necessary for the use of the official residence constitutes “when the land becomes unnecessary for military purposes” (negative)

(b) The case holding that it is difficult to view that military officers constitute a special circumstance that no longer needs for military purposes solely on the ground that military officers were constructed after 20 and 3 years from the removal of a military unit and that their size is small

A. In light of the fact that there is a great need for soldiers to live in the barracks or the vicinity of the military in preparation for the rapid mobilization of the military in case of an emergency and there are many cases where soldiers who are employed from time to time move the military unit in accordance with the military personnel order, the military officer is deemed to be a facility necessary for military operations beyond the mere cost of the military welfare facility, barring any special circumstance, land within the extent necessary for the use of the official residence cannot be deemed as a case where the military officer actually constructs and uses the military unit.

B. The case holding that it is difficult to view a military official as a special circumstance that no longer needs for military purposes solely on the ground that the military official was constructed after 20 and 3 years from the removal of a military unit and that the size thereof is small.

(a)Paragraph 1 of Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da19749 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 466)

Plaintiff 1 and four plaintiffs' attorneys-at-law

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 91Na11222 delivered on June 19, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) based on macroficial evidence, that the defendant purchased 872 square meters (872/1869 shares) out of 1,869 square meters prior to the 1,869 square meters prior to the deceased non-party 1, the deceased deceased person 1, who was the deceased person, on March 2, 1972; (b) pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisition Property; (c) the remaining part of the real estate was used as the security unit of the Republic of Korea's site after the completion of 326 square meters prior to the 1,805 square meters prior to the 1,805 square meters prior to the 1973 square meters prior to the 1972 square meters prior to the 1973 square meters prior to the 1973 square meters period; and (d) there was no need for the plaintiffs to use part of the real estate as the security unit of the Republic of Korea's building site after the 222000 square meters.

However, in light of the fact that there is a great need for military personnel to move military units from time to time to time in response to the rapid mobilization of the military units in preparation for the rapid mobilization of the military units, and that there is a lot of cases where military personnel in the military units move from time to time to time in accordance with the military personnel order, the military personnel is deemed to be a facility necessary for military purposes beyond the mere cost of the military welfare facility, barring any special circumstance, land within the extent necessary for the use of the official residence cannot be deemed to be a case where military necessity naturally becomes unnecessary (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da17538, 17545, Dec. 10, 1991; 90Da19749, Dec. 10, 199). Therefore, the land within the scope necessary for the use of the official residence cannot be deemed to be a case where the military units are actually constructed after the removal and transfer of the real estate, and it cannot be said that there is no need to be a special reason to construct the military unit after the removal.

Therefore, the court below determined that the land within the scope necessary for the official residence has no military necessity from the time when the security unit was removed to the land within the extent of the land required for the official residence even though it was currently used as part of the real estate of this case, and concluded that the plaintiffs acquired the right of repurchase, was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the military necessity, which is the requirement for exercising the right of repurchase under Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition Property, and there is a ground to point this out.

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

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)