(a) Criteria for compensation for requisition and the method of payment thereof;

(b) Liability for assertion and proof of compensation rate which is the basis for calculating compensation for requisition;

1. With respect to any requisitioned property at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisition (Act No. 2264, Dec. 31, 1970) or any property subject to requisition for which requisition has already been cancelled and any property subject to requisition for which lawsuit has been pending, the person requisitioned shall not claim compensation for requisition exceeding the prescribed criteria under Article 21 of the Requisition Act, according to any procedure.

2. The determination of the compensation rate, which serves as the basis for the calculation of compensation for requisitioned property, is a matter belonging to the Ministry of National Defense, the country to which the defendant belongs, and thus, should require the defendant to assert the compensation rate or to clarify the standard for such assessment, but the court below dismissed the claim on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove the compensation rate without any proof for the defendant, which was erroneous in the incomplete hearing or the burden of proof.

Article 21 of the Requisition Act, Articles 11, 13 of the Enforcement Decree of the Requisition Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 2 and Article 3 of the Regulations on Compensation for Requisition Property under paragraph (3) of the Enforcement Rule of the Requisition.

Supreme Court Decision 70Da340 Delivered on July 8, 1975

Plaintiff 1 and 42 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

The representatives of the Republic of Korea Law, the Ministry of Justice, the records of the Doctrine of the litigation performers, the Doctrine,

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na2896 delivered on December 7, 1979

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In the reasoning of the judgment, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant used the real estate of this case owned by the plaintiffs for requisition, but dismissed the plaintiffs' claim of this case on the ground that there is no plaintiff's assertion or proof as to the contents of the compensation rate applicable to this case, on the ground that the compensation rate for requisitioned property is not the amount calculated accurately by the above Article, but the compensation rate equivalent to the compensation rate for requisitioned property under the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 of the Regulations on the Compensation for Requisition Property under Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the Requisition of the Requisition Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 3 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, and Article 3 of the Addenda of the Requisition Act.

Therefore, in light of the relevant provisions, with respect to the payment of compensation for requisitioned property at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisition (Enforcement of Act No. 2264, Dec. 31, 1970; Act No. 2264) and requisitioned property for which requisition has already been cancelled, the requisitioned person is prohibited from claiming compensation for requisition in excess of the standards under Article 21 of the Requisition Act, and the compensation for requisition shall be paid in securities: Provided, That if the amount of compensation for requisition and its fraction are less than 10,000 won, the compensation for requisition shall be paid in cash and shall be paid to the plaintiff in accordance with the calculation method and payment method of the compensation for requisition (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da340, Jul. 8, 1975). Thus, the court below did not have any duty to prove the rate of compensation for requisitioned property at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisition or the compensation for requisition property for which the court below had no duty to prove the rate of compensation for surrounding property according to the relevant provisions of the court below.

Since the issue pointed out this point is well-grounded, the original judgment cannot be reversed.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges who will reverse the original judgment and make a new trial judgment.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)