A. Where a military facility is actually constructed and used, whether the land to the extent necessary for the use of the facility constitutes “when the land becomes unnecessary for military purposes” under Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property (negative)

B. Whether the part of the land can be determined as “when the use of military requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purposes” solely on the ground that the use of military requisitioned property is short-term or intermittent, or that it permits the use of civilian in the military jointly and severally (negative)

(a) In a case where a military facility is actually constructed and used, not only the site of the facility but also the land within the extent necessary for the use of the facility shall not be deemed to fall under “when it becomes unnecessary for military purposes” as stipulated in Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition Property;

B. As long as purchased requisitioned property has been used for the performance of military operations, it cannot be readily concluded that the part of the land constitutes “when it becomes unnecessary for military purposes” solely on the ground that the use of the purchased property is short or intermittent or that the military continues to use it to the extent that it does not interfere with its use.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da19749 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992,46) (Gong1992,993 delivered on February 11, 1992) 91Da28870 delivered on June 23, 1992 (Gong1992,2231) B. Supreme Court Decision 91Da2809 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong1991,251), Supreme Court Decision 91Da9886 delivered on February 11, 1992 (Gong192,980)

Plaintiff et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and one other

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na7001 delivered on October 7, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (including those stated in the supplementary appellate brief).

(1) On the first, second, and third grounds:

The issue of "when the military facilities become unnecessary for military purposes" in Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitions (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitions") shall not be deemed to fall under cases where military facilities are actually constructed and used unless there are other special circumstances. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu3249, Nov. 28, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 90Da19749, Dec. 10, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 91Da25499, Feb. 11, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Da28870, Jun. 23, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 91Da2989, Feb. 29, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da981970, Sept. 29, 209).

According to the records, since the court below's testimony of the witness who corresponds to the plaintiff's assertion that the above land had not been used for military purposes since around 1984 due to the removal and neglect of the military police portraits installed on the land of this case from around that time, and the remaining macroscopic evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it. Rather, according to the macroscopic evidence, the fifth unit of the Army of the defendant, who is in charge of the management of the above land around March 1972 after the purchase of the above land, established the first and the first unit of the military police station of the first on the above land and the first unit of the traffic control, and continued to use the above land for military purposes, such as controlling the traffic and traffic control, or parking of the military vehicles in operation, etc. from the front bank area and the fifth unit of the court below, it cannot be recognized that the above land has become unnecessary for military purposes from around 1984, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts, incomplete reasoning, etc.

There is no reason or reason to discuss.

(2) On the fourth ground for appeal:

According to the statement in the fourth pleading of the court below, it can be known that the request for correction of the purport of the claim and the ground for correction of the ground of the claim on June 22, 1992 only stated the remainder except the conjunctive claim, and the above claim cannot be viewed as a preliminary claim because it reduced the area within the scope of the whole claim against the land of this case, and it cannot be viewed as a preliminary claim. However, since the court below dismissed all of the claim on the ground that the whole land of this case did not constitute a case where military necessity is unnecessary, it shall be deemed that the above preliminary claim was dismissed, and therefore there is no error of law of omission of judgment like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment of the court below. The argument is without merit.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)