A. Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property and Article 487 of the Civil Act meaning of "when it is impossible for the person requisitioned to pay securities or cash" and Article 487 of the Civil Code

B. Legal nature and duration of the repurchase right of requisitioned property as stipulated in Article 20 of the above Special Measures

(c) Time when a repurchase right occurs, in cases where the State has purchased requisition for reasons of military necessity, but has not been used as military facilities, etc. thereafter.

A. Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property provides that "When it is impossible to pay securities or cash to the person requisitioned, which is the requirement for deposit under the provision of Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisition, it shall include cases where it is impossible to pay securities or cash to the person requisitioned due to a dispute between the person requisitioned and the transferor of the securities subject to requisition, and cases where it is unclear to whom the amount of the securities or cash should be paid to anyone, except in cases where it is difficult to know who has taken over the securities or cash, it shall also include cases where it is impossible to know who has received the securities or cash."

B. When a repurchase right is created pursuant to Article 20(1) of the Act on Special Measures, the repurchase right holder of requisitioned property may exercise the repurchase right even without a notice of repurchase or a public notice of repurchase by the Minister of National Defense, and this is a formative right with no term of existence specified, and thus, is no longer necessary for military purposes, i.e., when the repurchase right is exercised within a period of 10 years from the time

C. A repurchase right shall be created from the time a decision of purchase becomes final and conclusive in the absence of the occupation of a military facility, such as a shooting range, for the reason that the State was required to use the real estate for military purposes.

(a) Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property;

A. Supreme Court Decision 73Da1792 delivered on April 9, 1974 (No. 22 ② 132). Supreme Court Decision 90Meu643 delivered on April 23, 1991 (Gong1991, 1452) (Gong1991, 1905 delivered on June 11, 1991) 91Da8456 delivered on September 24, 1991 (Gong191, 2594)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na14095 delivered on November 28, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) In the context of Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisitioned Property (amended by Act No. 4144 of Dec. 21, 1989) where it is impossible to pay securities or cash to the person requisitioned, which is the requirement for deposit under Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Requisition, the case where it is impossible to pay securities or cash to the person requisitioned due to a dispute between the person requisitioned and the transferor or transferee of the securities subject to the requisition, and where it is unclear to whom the amount of the securities or cash should be paid to anyone because the dispute arises between the transferor or transferee of the securities subject to the requisition (see Supreme Court Decision 73Da1792 of Apr. 9, 1974 as of Apr. 9, 1974). In addition, it is reasonable to regard that the case where the requisitioned is included in the case of "where the obligee cannot be known" under Article 487 of the Civil Act.

Article 13 of the Act on Special Measures provides that "the Bank of Korea shall deposit securities or cash to the public official of the court when the person subject to requisition refuses to receive securities or cash or when the person subject to requisition is unable to pay securities or cash." Thus, "the creditor cannot be identified without the negligence of the person subject to requisition" under Article 487 of the Civil Act does not require deposit under the above Act. The deposit under the above Act does not require deposit under the above Act, unless the decision of purchase of requisition, which is an administrative disposition prior to the decision of purchase of requisition, is null and void as a matter of course, the deposit of the Bank of Korea made because the whereabouts of the person subject to requisition is unknown is legitimate. It is just in its decision with the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the provisions of Articles 6, 12, 3, and 4 of the Act, Articles 9, 12, and 13 of the Act, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the special measures, the reasons therefor, and the omission of reasons therefor, etc.

(2) When a repurchase right is created pursuant to Article 20(1) of the aforementioned Special Measures, the person having the right to repurchase requisitioned property may exercise the repurchase right even without a notice of repurchase or a public notice of repurchase by the Minister of National Defense, and as such, the said Special Measures does not stipulate the exercise period of the repurchase right in such cases, it shall exercise the exercise within a period of 10 years as a formation right with no term of existence. The said period shall be deemed to run from the time when the exercise of the repurchase right becomes unnecessary for military purposes.

As legally determined by the court below, although the defendant purchased the instant real estate on the ground that it is necessary to use it for military purposes, there is no later possession or use of it as military facilities, and there is no use of it as a shooting range and each open-to-air training site, and the repurchase right occurs from the time when the decision to purchase becomes final and conclusive, and the repurchase right expires unless it is exercised within 10 years counting from that time, and therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport has expired due to the lapse of the limitation period. Therefore, it is just and there is no ground for appeal asserting that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the exercise period of the repurchase right in the judgment of the court below (see each of the Supreme Court Decisions 90Da643, Apr. 23, 191; 91Da8456, Sept. 24, 191).

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)