Main Issues
(a) Duration of the right of repurchase of requisitioned property;
(b) The case holding that a repurchase right shall become effective on the ground that a repurchase right is not necessary for military purposes since the purchase was made since the purchase was made on the ground that there was a need for military use, but there was no later established military installations, etc. and no later used for military purposes, such as military training
Summary of Judgment
A. The duration of the repurchase right of the requisitioned person or his/her heir created when all or part of the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purposes pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property shall be deemed to be ten years from the date when such cause occurred, except where the notice or public notice of repurchase is given by the Minister of National Defense under Article 20(2) and (3) of the same Act, and the repurchase right shall expire upon the lapse of the exclusion period.
(b) The case holding that a repurchase right shall become effective on the ground that a repurchase right is not necessary for military purposes since the purchase was made since the purchase was made on the ground that there was a need for military use, but there was no later established military installations, etc. and no later used for military purposes, such as military training
[Reference Provisions]
Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property
Reference Cases
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1184 (Gong190, 1162) (Gong1990, 1162) and 90Da13420 (Gong199, 2267) decided Feb. 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1052) and 90Da4409 decided Apr. 23, 1991
Plaintiff-Appellee
Lee-i and 8 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee
Defendant-Appellant
Korea
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul High Court Decision 89Na18964 delivered on December 13, 1989
Text
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
The duration of the repurchase right of the requisitioned person or his/her heir, which occurs when all or part of the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purposes pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, shall be deemed to be ten years from the date on which such a ground arises, except where the notice or public notice of repurchase is given or made by the Minister of National Defense pursuant to Article 20(2) and (3) of the same Act. If the period has lapsed, the repurchase right shall be extinguished upon the lapse of the exclusion period (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu25342, Jan. 12, 1990).
As determined by the court below, although the defendant purchased the real estate of this case on the ground that it needs to be used for military purposes, it was not established on the ground, such as military installations, until the closing of argument in the court below, and it was not used for military purposes, such as military operations or training, unless there are any other special circumstances, the person subject to requisition (or his heir) shall have the right of repurchase, and the right of repurchase shall expire after the lapse of the exclusion period, unless it is exercised within 10 years from that time.
According to the records, in this case where the plaintiffs' exercise of the right of repurchase can be seen to have been done after the lapse of the above exclusion period, the court below rejected the defendant's defense as to the exclusion period solely on the ground that Article 20 (1) of the above Act only provides only the requirements for the occurrence of the right of repurchase, and it does not provide the exclusion period for the exercise of the right of repurchase, or did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the duration of the right of repurchase or omitting the decision on this point.
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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)