(a) Duration of the redemptive right where the Minister of National Defense fails to give notice or public notice of repurchase to the repurchase authority under 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 emergencies, which are the requirements for purchase under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property

(c) Time when a repurchase right occurs, in cases where the military has not been used since the State purchased the property under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition or the necessity of continued use is not recognized by the objective situation.

(a) Where the Minister of National Defense fails to give notice or public notice of repurchase to the repurchase authority under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property, the repurchase right shall expire ten years after the date when the repurchase right occurs, that is, when the requisitioned property becomes unnecessary for military purposes;

B. Since the military necessity, which is a requirement for purchase under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property, is not a subjective requirement, but an objective requirement, the existence of such necessity must be determined depending on whether the military is currently being used for military tension and whether the need for continued use is recognized by objective circumstances, rather than the military’s subjective intent.

C. In a case where the military is not used from the time when the State purchased the requisitioned property under the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment or the necessity of continued use is not recognized due to the objective situation, the person requisitioned may raise an objection within 30 days from the date when the notice of decision to purchase was served under Article 7 of the said Act, and challenge the legality of the decision to purchase, or exercise the right of repurchase on the ground that there is no need to continue use for military purposes under Article 20 of the said Act after the decision to purchase the property becomes final and conclusive, the period of exclusion from the time when the decision to purchase becomes final and conclusive.

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

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Da13420 Decided February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 458) (Gong1991, 1052). Supreme Court Decision 89Da2809 Decided December 12, 1989 (Gong1990, 256), Supreme Court Decision 91Da2809 Decided March 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1251), which is Supreme Court Decision 90Da643 Decided April 23, 1991 (Gong191, 1452).

Plaintiff 1 and three others, Plaintiffs Kim Jong-Un, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Korea

Supreme Court Decision 89Meu31184 Delivered on April 27, 1990

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na12006 delivered on January 15, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the above 197 days after the 197th anniversary of the fact that the above 1st anniversary of the above 3th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the 197th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the fact that the above 4th anniversary of the above 5th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 4th anniversary of the above 1st of the above 1st radio training.

Upon examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, we affirm the above fact-finding of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the arguments, and even though the defendant alleged that the land of this case was used in the military unit from the time of 1979, it cannot be viewed as a confession as to the extinction of the military necessity, which is the requirement to exercise the right to repurchase, under Article 20 of the Act on Special Measures, so there is no error of law as to the misapprehension of legal principles of confession, such as the theory of lawsuit, or the lack of reasoning

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

Since the military necessity, which is a requirement for purchase under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property, is not a subjective requirement, but an objective requirement, the existence or absence of such necessity should be determined by whether the military is currently being used for military tension and whether the need for continued use is recognized by objective circumstances.

Therefore, in a case where the military is not used from the time when the State was purchased under the provisions of the above Act, or where the necessity of continued use is not recognized due to the objective situation, the person subject to requisition may file an objection within 30 days from the date when a notice of decision to purchase was served under Article 7 of the above Act, and the legality of the decision to purchase is disputed, or the person subject to requisition may exercise the right of repurchase for the reason that there is no need to continue use for military purposes under Article 20 of the above Act after the decision

Ultimately, if the state does not use the Gun from the time of purchase or the necessity for continued use is not recognized due to objective circumstances, the exclusion period of the exercise of the right of repurchase shall commence from the time when the decision of purchase becomes final and conclusive. Since the reasoning of the court below shows that the above purport is insufficient, it is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the calculation of the exclusion period, such as the theory of lawsuit.

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 Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)