[1] The purport of Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property

[2] The meaning of "where property to be sold under Article 20-2 (2) of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property has occurred"

[3] Whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the existence of the infringed right in a case where a claim for damages can be filed

[1] The provisions of Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, unlike the provisions of Article 20 of the same Act, does not recognize the preferential right of purchase to the person requisitioned where the State can sell the requisitioned property to the person requisitioned under a negotiated contract, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act.

[2] When property to be sold under Article 20-2 (2) of the former Act on Special Measures for Requisitioned Property (amended by Act No. 4618 of Dec. 27, 1993) has been created, it is reasonable to view that even if the person requisitioned or his/her heir must notify (public notice when his/her address or residence cannot be known) without delay, of the property to be sold under paragraph (1), it is not "when the property to be sold has been sold under a free contract to the person requisitioned or his/her heir" but "when the property to be sold is sold under a free contract to the person requisitioned or his/her heir pursuant to paragraph (1)."

[3] A lawsuit for confirmation shall be permitted where there is an interest in immediate confirmation of the present rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute. If a claim for damages can be filed, seeking confirmation of the existence of the infringed rights is not a final resolution of the dispute, and there is no interest in confirmation.

[1] Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property / [2] Article 20-2 (2) of the former Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitiond Property (amended by Act No. 4618, Dec. 27, 1993) / [3] Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da24022 delivered on June 13, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2388) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da26690 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2812) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 91Da6757 delivered on July 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 2224) Supreme Court Decision 91Da1264 delivered on October 11, 1991 (Gong191, 2695) Supreme Court Decision 93Da4089 delivered on November 222, 1994 (Gong195, 57)

Plaintiff

Busan Metropolitan City and one other (Attorney Kim In-bok, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 94Na12804 delivered on December 22, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Point 1

Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property (amended by Act No. 4144 of Dec. 21, 1989 and Act No. 4618 of Dec. 27, 1993) and Article 2 of the Addenda (amended by Act No. 4618 of Dec. 27, 1993) cannot be deemed to conflict with the basic ideology of the Constitution concerning the guarantee of property rights, and they cannot be deemed to discriminate against the person requisitioned without any reasonable reason, and therefore, they cannot be deemed to be in violation of Articles 23 and 11(1) of the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Order 92Hun-Ba14, Feb. 23, 1995). We have no reason to discuss.

Point 2, 3, and 4

Unlike the provisions of Article 20-2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, the purport that the State can sell the requisitioned property, the repurchase period of which has expired, notwithstanding the provisions of the State Property Act, to the person requisitioned, does not recognize the preferential right to purchase the requisitioned property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da26690, Oct. 22, 1991; 94Da24022, Jun. 13, 1995). In addition, the above special measures (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4618, Dec. 27, 1993) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da24022, Jun. 13, 1995).

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the respondent has a preferential right to purchase the property subject to sale under Article 20-2 (1) of the above Special Measures, is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interpretation of Article 20-2 of the above Special Measures Act or in the misapprehension of legal reasoning or the contradiction

In addition, we cannot accept the argument that concluding a sales contract with Defendant Busan Metropolitan City without notifying or notifying the Plaintiff of the instant land on the premise that the Plaintiff, the requisitioned Republic of Korea, has a preferential right to purchase the property subject to sale under the above Paragraph (1).

Point 5

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed in cases where there is an interest in immediate confirmation of the present rights or legal relations between the parties to the dispute, and it is not a final solution of the dispute to seek confirmation of the existence of the infringed rights, and thus there is no interest in confirmation. Therefore, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason for discussion.

Therefore, the appeal is 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)