A. The meaning of "when it becomes unnecessary for military purposes" as the requirement for exercising the right of repurchase under Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property

(b) Criteria for determining whether there is a need to continue to use the military for military purposes under Article 2(1) of the same Act;

(c) The case holding that it is insufficient to recognize military necessity solely on the basis of the fact that the official residences of the military unit are built on the ground, which is part of the adjoining land, not the land, and that the land within the concrete fence is not recognized as the land necessary for the use of the official residences, and that if the specific plan for the construction of the official residences has not been completed on the land in dispute, such as the existence of the official residences or the scheduled construction of the official residences, etc.

A. The phrase “when there is no military necessity”, which is the requirement for the exercise of the right of repurchase under Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, means that the necessity of purchase of requisitioned property has ceased to exist. Thus, the phrase “military necessity” is the same as “military necessity” under Article 2(1) of the same Act.

B. Since the need for continuous use by the military is objective requirements due to military tensions stipulated in Article 2(1) of the same Act, the existence of such necessity must be recognized by objective circumstances when the military is in need of military tension and currently used, and the need for continuous use should be recognized in the future.

C. The case holding that even if there are many soldiers in the lower court, who frequently use a lodging house in the military or in the vicinity of the military, frequently move a military operation unit according to the military operation plan, and there is a poor housing situation surrounding the place of the military station, etc., the military officer's first unit's office is not the land in the dispute but the land in the vicinity of the neighboring land, but the concrete fence was constructed over part of the land in the wall, but it is not recognized as the land within the extent necessary for the use of the building since the land in the wall was the location of the above official residence, and it is not possible to find whether the above land is an indispensable land in accordance with the public official's new construction plan because the building plan was not completed on the land in the dispute, and it is not enough to recognize that the above land is an essential land in accordance with the public official's new construction plan.

(a)Article 2(1)(a) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Meu9675 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 256). Supreme Court Decision 91Da2809 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1251) (Gong1991, 2594 delivered on September 24, 1991), Supreme Court Decision 90Da19749 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong192,466).

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na23778 delivered on January 28, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. "When there is no military necessity", which is the requirement for the exercise of the right to repurchase under Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property, means that the necessity for the purchase of requisitioned property has ceased to exist. Thus, the phrase "military necessity" as mentioned above is the same as "military necessity" under Article 2 (1) of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 89Meu9675 delivered on December 12, 1989). Meanwhile, since the necessity for continuous use by the military is objective requirements for military necessity as above, the existence of such necessity is longer than the subjective intention of the military, and the necessity for continuous use by the military is recognized by objective situation (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da8456 delivered on September 24, 191).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the land use relation of the security unit of this case. According to the facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the military necessity of the above land was extinguished because the security unit was removed from the land of this case on August 1985, and the original requisition of the above land was extinguished, considering the use condition of the above land and the surrounding circumstances, the military necessity of the above land was extinguished, barring special circumstances. Thus, even if the original requisition was terminated, the military necessity exists as long as it is necessary to continue the use of the above land for military purpose, so the removal of the original requisition cannot be a standard for measuring the existence of military necessity. However, the purport of the original original adjudication is that the military necessity was extinguished in view of its objective situation such as the present utilization condition of the land of this case or surrounding circumstances, etc. The purport of the original adjudication of this case is nothing more than unnecessary, and therefore there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of the judgment below.

2. In addition, the court below's finding of facts is acceptable, and there is no error of law as to the determination of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason for this issue.

3. In addition, in light of the special characteristics of the military, such as the fact that military personnel living in the barracks or in the vicinity of the military frequently move the workplace according to the military operation plan, and the housing situation surrounding the site of the military station is poor, there are many cases where the military personnel's official's official residence constitutes a facility necessary for military affairs, according to the facts duly determined by the court below, only one unit of the security unit's official residence is constructed on the ground of the neighboring land, not on the land of this case, but on the land of this case where the concrete fence was constructed on the part of the land of this case, it is not recognized as land within the extent necessary for its use since the land of this case is located in the above official residence. In addition, since the specific building plan on the land of this case is not completed, there is no need for the court below to find that there is a violation of the rule of experience and rule of experience, and thus, there is no need to establish a new construction of the wall of this case as well as a new construction of the land of this case.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)