A. The meaning of "when military necessity is no longer necessary" under Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property

B. Criteria for determining the necessity of continuous use by the military due to military tensions under Article 2(1) of the same Act

(c) The case holding that the need for continued use in the military cannot be deemed to have ceased solely on the ground that the number of troopss in the area of 5,000 square meters is 387;

A. The phrase "when military necessity is no longer necessary", which is the requirement for exercising the right of repurchase under Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, means the case where the necessity of purchase of requisitioned property is extinguished, and the phrase "military necessity" is the same as "military necessity" under Article 2 (1) of the above Act.

B. Since the need for continuous use by the military is objective requirements due to military tensions under Article 2(1) of the same Act, the existence of such necessity must be determined by objective circumstances, rather than by the military’s subjective intent, whether the military is currently being used and the need for continued use is determined in the future.

C. The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the need for continued use in the military can not be deemed to have ceased solely on the ground that the number of troopss in the area of 5,000 square meters is 387.

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

A.B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da9180 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2401) (Gong1992, 2401). Decision 89Meu9675 delivered on December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 256) 91Da2809 delivered on March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1251) B. 91Da8456 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong191, 2594)

Plaintiff 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 91Na9184 delivered on July 30, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' attorney's grounds of appeal.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the above 10th unit's 7th unit's 14th unit's 7th unit's 5th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 7th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 10th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 1th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 1th unit's 5th unit's 1th unit's 16th unit's 19th unit's 7th unit's.

(2) Article 20 (1) of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property (hereinafter "Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisition") provides that "when there is no need for military purchase" means when there is no need for military purchase of requisitioned property. The phrase "military necessity" is the same as "military necessity" under Article 2 (1) of the above Act. On the other hand, as the necessity for military necessity is objective requirement, the existence of necessity is more important than military intention, and it is determined by objective situation that there is a need for military use as well as the need for continuous use in the future (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da9180 delivered on July 14, 192). Since the status of the requisitioned land in this case is so wide as there is no need for military use within the boundary of neighboring land and military installations, it can be determined that there is no need for military use within the area of the same time as the area of the new military unit to be used within the boundary of the area of the area of the same case, and it can be determined that there is no need for military use within the area of the area of this case.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no reason to argue that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete deliberation as to the military necessity under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property

2. In examining the records, the plaintiffs did not present any grounds of appeal as to the part against the plaintiffs as to the real estate stated in Article 1-2, 2-2, 3, and 5-3 of the attached Table 1-2, 2-2, 3, and 5 of the judgment of the court below. Thus, this part of the

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)