A. Whether a repurchase right can be exercised where the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purposes after the expiration of the period stipulated in Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property (negative)

(b) The criteria for determining "if there is no need for military purposes" as prescribed in Article 20 of the same Act, and the circumstances that the period of use is short or intermittent;

A. Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property provides that "When all or part of the pertinent property becomes unnecessary for military purposes within five years prior to the expiration of the redemption of securities paid as the purchase price of the requisitioned property or within five years from the expiration of the redemption thereof," the requirements for the occurrence of the right of repurchase can be exercised only when the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purposes within the said period, and the right of repurchase cannot be exercised in cases where it becomes unnecessary for military purposes after the said period expires.

B. The issue of “when there is no need for military purposes” under Article 20 of the same Act is not limited to whether the pertinent requisitioned property at issue has been stationed in a specific military unit or has been maintained, maintained, or maintained for a long time or in the actual state of possession, but it should be determined according to the tension that the military has to continue to use in accordance with the concept of highly modernized military operations. As long as the requisitioned property has been used for military operations, it cannot be determined that the relevant land portion falls under a case where the military needs no longer exist due to the fact that the period of use is short or sporadic.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu9675 Decided December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 256) (Gong1990, 256) 88Meu25342 Decided January 12, 1990 (Gong1990, 458). Supreme Court Decision 91Da2809 Decided March 22, 1991 (Gong191, 1251)

Plaintiff 1

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Dongsung Law Firm, Attorneys Park Du-hn et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na46286 delivered on February 5, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

(1) We examine the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s grounds of appeal.

Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property (hereinafter referred to as the “Special Measures for Readjustment”) provides that the requirements for a redemptive right shall be met: “When all or part of the pertinent property becomes unnecessary for military purposes within five years before the redemption of securities paid for the purchase price of requisitioned property is terminated or within five years after the redemption is completed.” Thus, a repurchase right may be exercised only when the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purposes within the said period, and where a military purpose no longer exists after the said period expires, a repurchase right shall not be exercised (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu9675, Dec. 12, 1989; 88Meu28211, Jan. 12, 1990).

According to the decision of the court below, since the land of this case was requisitioned and used as the runway site and facility site of the Army 77 Flight Team, and the defendant purchased the above flight price from around 1983 to another place, and thereafter, the above flight price was transferred from around 1983 and thereafter, the 2,33 observation units among the land of this case and the 4, and the 333 observation units among the 4, 1986, were used until March 28, 1986, and the unit was moved to another place, and since the above unit was used as the 333 observation units among the 1,000,000, the court below's 2,000,000 won and the 1,000,000,000 won and the 2,000,000,000 won and the 3,000,000,000 won from March 1, 1981.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Litigation Performers.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff 1 acquired the special land under Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Article 20 (1) of the Act, on the ground that the first real estate among the land in this case, which was used as the site for the runway site in the Army 77 Flight Team and the site for its accessory facilities, shall be deemed to fall under the category of "when the whole or part of the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purpose" of Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning Article 20 (1) of the Act, since the above flight cost of the real estate in this case, which was used as the site for the runway site in the Army 77 Flight Team and its accessory facilities, shall be deemed to fall under the category of "when the whole or part of the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purpose" in this part of this case, since the above flight cost of the real estate transferred to another place in around 1983 and remains in the runway form without a clear military installation.

However, the issue of “when there is no military necessity” as provided in Article 20 of the Special Assistance Act shall not be limited to whether the pertinent requisitioned property at issue stays in a specific military unit or has been maintained or maintained for a long time, or has been maintained or maintained in other realistic possession, but it shall be determined according to the tension that the military has to continue to use in accordance with the highly modernized military concept (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da2809 delivered on March 22, 191). Even if it is based on the fact determined by the original court, the above portion of land used as the runway site and auxiliary facilities after moving the above flight cost to another place, which remains in the form of a runway, has not been used as a site for two weeks or four weeks or more, and it can not be determined that the above portion of land used as a site for military operation at the time of a short time after moving to a different place or as a site for military operation at the same time as the above portion of land was used as a result of the above 3rd trial or training ground of the military court.

Therefore, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above part of the land of this case was used for military operations without any clear evidence, but determined that the above part of the land of this case constitutes a case where the above part of the land was acquired a redemptive right for the above part on the ground that it was no longer necessary for military operations after the fact finding that it was short and sporadic, as stated in its reasoning, and thus, it affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 20 (1) of the Special Assistance Act or by mismisunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation.

The appeal is justified.

(3) Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)