1. Cases corresponding to "where military necessity no longer exists" under Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property;

2. The meaning of “within five years from the date on which repayment has been terminated” as prescribed in the said Article; and

1. In addition, military necessity, such as the removal of all military munitions appurtenant facilities, which were installed on the land requisitioned by the Requisition Act in order to use them as the incidental facilities of the military munitions, and the relocation of the military munitions unit to the alternative facilities construction area. If no military installations are installed on the land thereafter, even if the land is located within the wall zone of the Seoul Metropolitan Area for military operations, the military necessity, such as the maintenance of military munitions incidental facilities, etc., which existed on the land, was no longer nonexistent.

2. Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property only provides for the requirements of a repurchase right that “not later than the end of the redemption of the securities or within five years after the redemption is terminated,” and the duration of the repurchase right is not determined.

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

Kim Jae-name et al.

Korea

1. The defendant,

A. On November 4, 1986, 1986, the Plaintiff Kim Jae-name, the same Kim Jae-hwan, the same Kim Jae-hwan, the same Kim Jae-chul, and the same Kim Jae-hwan were due to a sale on the basis of one seventh of each of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1 in the attached Table.

B. On July 29, 1987, with respect to one seventh share of the same real estate against the plaintiff Kim Jae-sung

C. With respect to the shares of 417,672/209 of the shares in the 52,209 shares in the 52,209 shares in the 52,331 shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the respective procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on November 4, 1986, with respect to shares of 417,672/10 of the shares in the 52,209 shares in the same real estate to the same Kim Jae-hwan.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

원래 별지목록 제1기재 부동산(이하 이건 제1부동산이라 한다)은 원고들이 각 7분의 1지분씩을 공동소유하고 있었고, 같은 목록 제2기재 부동산(이하 이건 제2부동산이라 한다)은 원고 김재명, 같은 김재욱이 각 8분의 1지분씩을, 같은 김재원, 같은 김재성, 같은 김재현이 각 8분의 2 지분씩을 공동소유하고 있었는데, 피고가 이를 징발법에 의하여 징발하여 사용하던 중 1970.1.1. 제정된 징발재산정리에관한특별조치법에 의하여 군사상 긴요하여 군이 계속 사용할 필요가 있다는 이유로 1973.11.16. 원고들로부터 매수하여 같은 해 12.21. 서울지방법원 의정부지원 접수 제18337호, 제18338호로써 피고앞으로 각 소유권이전등기를 경료한 사실 및 피고가 원고들로부터 이건 제1, 2 부동산을 각 매수할 당시 그 매수대금을 같은 특별조치법에 의하여 1971.3.1. 발행된 징발보상증권으로 지급하였고, 위 징발보상증권은 1981.3.1. 그 상환이 종료된 사실은 당사자들 사이에 다툼이 없고, 각 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제3호증의 1(증권매수재산환매), 같은 호증의 2(국유재산환매통지서), 갑 제5호증의 1, 2(각 도시계획확인서), 갑 제6호증(팜프렛), 갑 제7호증(도면), 갑 제8호증의 1, 2(각 지도), 같은 호증의 3(지적도등본), 갑 제9호증의 1, 2, 갑 제10호증의 1, 2, 갑 제11호증의 1, 2(각 관보표지 및 내용)의 각 기재와 증인 좌덕종의 증언, 이 법원의 현장검증결과 및 의정부시장에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 피고가 이건 제1, 2부동산을 징발법에 의하여 징발한 이래 이건 제1, 2부동산을 포함한 수필지의 토지상에 군탄약부대 및 초소 등의 부대시설을 설치하여 군사목적으로 사용하고 있었으나, 위 군탄약부대의 인근주민들을 포함한 의정부시민들이 1979. 이래 수차례에 걸쳐 군탄약부대가 의정부시의 시가지와 너무 가까이 설치되어 있어 폭발의 위험성 때문에 불안할 뿐 아니라, 의정부시 시가지 균형개발을 저해하고 있으므로 이를 이전하여 달라고 요청한 사실, 이에 따라 국방부와 의정부시는 1980.8.경부터 1981.3.경까지 사이에 위 군탄약부대 및 부대시설 등을 타지역으로 이전하기로 하는 세부이전계획을 확정하고, 위 세부이전계획을 지원하기 위하여 위 군탄약부대 소재 토지의 원소유자들을 중심으로 "의정부 도시개발추진위원회"를 발족함과 함께 이전부담금을 갹출하여 위 군탄약부대의 대체시설공사비의 일부를 지원한 사실, 피고는 위 이전계획에 따라 1984.4.3.경부터 이전대체시설공사를 착공하여 1985.10.경까지 위 대체시설공사를 완공함과 아울러 이건 제1, 2부동산 등 토지상에 있던 기존의 위 군탄약부대 시설을 모두 철거하고 위 군탄약부대를 위 대체시설공사지역으로 이전하였고 그후 이건 제1, 2부동산 위에는 아무런 시설물도 설치하지 아니한 사실, 피고산하 국방부에서는 1986.2.21.경부터 기존의 위 군탄약부대 시설이 설치되어 있던 토지들의 원소유자들 중 일부에게 징발된 토지를 환매하겠다는 통지를 하기 시작하여, 원고들에게도 이건 제1, 2부동산 중 1,247평을 환매하겠다는 통지를 하였으나 위 1,247평을 제외한 나머지 이건 제1, 2부동산 부분에 대하여는 환매와 관련하여 아무런 통지도 하지 아니한 사실, 피고가 환매하겠다는 의사를 표시하지 아니한 이건 제1, 2부동산 부분을 제외한 나머지 토지들을 비롯한 일대의 토지 288,048평에 대하여는 1986.4.9. 건설부고시 제143호, 같은 해 8.11. 건설부고시 제344호, 같은 해 12.9. 경기도고시 제466호로서 토지구획정리사업지구로 결정고시되어, 의정부시에서 신시가지도로 및 주택공사 등을 시행하기 시작한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 달리 반증이 없는 바, 사실관계가 위와 같다면 적어도 이건 제1, 2부동산상에 설치되어 있던 군탄약부대의 시설 일체가 철거되고, 인근의 토지상에는 토지구획정리사업까지 진행되기 시작한 1985.10.경에는 피고가 위 특별조치법에 의하여 이건 제1, 2부동산을 매수할 당시 존재하였던 군탄약부대 시설 등을 유지하는 등의 군사상 필요는 더 이상 존재하지 않게 되었다 할 것이므로 피고는 위 특별조치법 제20조 에 의하여 이 사건 소장부본의 송달로써 환매권을 행사(다만 원고 김재성의 이건 제1부동산에 대한 환매권의 행사는 1987.7.28.자 청구취지 및 청구원인별경신청서 부본의 송달에 의한다)하는 원고 등에게 이를 원인으로 하여 이건 제1, 2부동산에 관한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다 할 것이다.

Therefore, even if there are such circumstances as above, such as the removal of military supply facilities on the first and second real estate, the defendant still dispute to the effect that the military supply control line still exists in the zone and it is necessary to continue to use the military supply control over the above real estate for military operations, so it is not necessary to establish the first and second military supply control building on the building section of the above land, which is not the first and second military supply control building on the building section of the above area, and the second installation plan of the building on the building section of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the first to the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the exercise of the right of repurchase under Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property should be exercised within the exclusion period of five years from the date when the redemption of the securities paid as the purchase price of the requisitioned property is terminated, and that the exercise of the right of repurchase by the plaintiffs in this case was made after five years from March 1, 1981 on which the repayment of the securities was terminated.

First, as to whether Article 20 of the Special Measures for the Acquisition of Land provides for the exclusion period of five years as alleged by the defendant, Article 20 (1) of the same Act provides that "when the redemption of the securities purchased under this Act is completed or within five years from the date the redemption of the securities is completed, the person requisitioned or his heir may purchase the securities first," and the above provision provides that "if the whole or part of the property becomes unnecessary for military purpose, the person requisitioned or his heir shall be entitled to purchase the rights first, i.e., the right to purchase the land, within the period of 10 years prior to the expiration of the redemption right or within the period of 5 years from the date of the said expropriation, the Minister of National Defense shall consider the exclusion period of 10 years from the date of the said expropriation right as the date of the above provision or the date of 10 years from the date of termination of the repurchase right, the Minister of National Defense shall consider the exclusion period of 2 years from the date of the said expropriation right as the date of the above provision or the date of termination of the repurchase right."

Therefore, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the redemption date of the requisition compensation securities for the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 is March 1, 1981. Since the redemption date of this case's 1 and 2 real estate has yet to elapse five years thereafter, it was no longer necessary for military purposes by removing all the military facilities, etc. installed on the 1 and 2 real estate and relocating the facilities. After that, the defendant issued a notice of repurchase under Article 20 (2) of the same Act with respect to the portion for which the plaintiffs filed a claim for the transfer registration of the real estate No. 1 and 2 real estate, there is no room to proceed with the exclusion period for the right to purchase which the plaintiffs acquired pursuant to Article 20 (1) of the same Act. Thus, the defendant's assertion that this case's exercise of the right to repurchase was made after the expiration of the exclusion period of the repurchase right, and is no longer effective.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver to the plaintiff Kim Jae-hwan, the same Kim Jae-hwan, the same Kim Jae-hwan, the same Kim Jae-hwan, the same Kim Jae-hwan, and the same Kim Jae-hwan with respect to one seventh share of the first real estate of this case on November 4, 1986, with respect to one seventh share of the same real estate as the date on which a copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant on November 28, 1986, and one seventh share of the same real estate of this case on July 29, 1987, the purport of this case and the application for modification of the cause of claim of this case were served to the defendant on July 29, 1987, and it is obvious that the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant, the plaintiff Kim Jae-hwan and the same Kim Jae-sik who still remains in the name of the defendant 52,209, 417,672/5209 of the second real estate of this case [the above plaintiffs's share of this case and 2536/19/1481/1/14 of the same real estate of this case]

Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)