The case holding that the right of repurchase has been exercised after the expiration of the exclusion period of the right of repurchase under Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition Property

The right of repurchase under Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property is a kind of right of repurchase, and if the Minister of National Defense notifies the exercise of the right of repurchase under paragraph (3) of the same Article, it shall exercise the right of repurchase within three months thereafter, and if not, within ten years after the occurrence of the right of repurchase, that is, when the whole or part of the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for the military purpose, and the above period shall be considered as the exclusion period. Thus, if the requisitioned property is installed on some land and other military installations, such as ammunition, are installed, and the remaining real estate requisitioned is neglected on the boundary line of the installation area, it shall be deemed that there is no need for military purpose. Therefore, if the right of repurchase was exercised after the expiration of ten years, it shall be deemed that the right of repurchase has been exercised after the expiration of the exclusion period.

Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 10 others (Law Firm Han-chul, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 2 others, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-

Attorney Kim Jong-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na18060 delivered on May 30, 1990

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

The grounds of appeal No. 3 by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

In its reasoning, the court below held that the defendant purchased the land of this case under the Requisition Act in 1972 and 1973 and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant for the reason that it is necessary for the military to continue to use the land in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition, and that the purchase price was paid in the name of the defendant for the purchase price. Since the defendant requisitioned a lot of neighboring land including this case under the Requisition Act, he installed military installations such as ammunition and portraits around the land of this case and installed them within the boundary line of the installation area. However, the court below held that the plaintiff did not have a duty of repurchase under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition, since the defendant used the above military installations for military purposes, and transferred the ownership transfer registration to the substitute facility from the expiration of the above military time to the expiration of the period of 0 years before the expiration of the above military installation period, the plaintiff did not have a duty of repurchase right under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition.

However, the right of repurchase under Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property is a kind of formation right, and if the Minister of National Defense notifies the exercise of the right of repurchase under paragraph (3) of the same Article, it shall exercise the right of repurchase within three months thereafter, and if not, within ten years from the time when the right of repurchase arises, that is, when the whole or part of the property subject to requisition becomes unnecessary for military purposes, and the above period shall be considered as the exclusion period (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu28211, Jan. 12, 1990; Supreme Court Decision 89Meu2674, Jan. 23, 1990).

Therefore, if it is deemed that there was no need for military purposes when the instant real estate is neglected outside the said steel network as decided by the court below, it shall be deemed that at least the said steel network was installed in 1972 and 1973, and according to the record, the Plaintiff exercised the instant redemptive right on October 13, 1987, and thus, it shall be deemed that it exercised the said redemptive right after the lapse of 10 years from the limitation period.

The argument points out this point is with merit, and therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)