Whether the effect of the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality affects general cases brought after the decision of unconstitutionality.

The effect of the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court is not only the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind before the decision of unconstitutionality is made, or the case in which the court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind, but also the case in which the relevant law or provision of the law has been pending in the court as the premise of judgment, but also the general case brought for the above reasons after the decision of unconstitutionality is made.

Article 47 (2) of the Constitutional Court Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee) 93Da3783 decided Jul. 16, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2290) decided Nov. 26, 1993 (Gong194Sang, 196)

Plaintiff

Korea

Incheon District Court Decision 93Na4564 delivered on October 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

The effect of the decision of unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court is that not only the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind, but also the case in which the Constitutional Court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind before the decision of unconstitutionality, or the court made a request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the same kind. However, it is reasonable to view that the relevant law or provision of the law has a general case brought for the above reasons after the decision of unconstitutionality as well as the case in which the court is pending on the premise of judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da12377 delivered on Jan.

In this regard, the court below's decision that Article 5 (2) of the State Property Act does not apply the above provision to the land of this case which is a state-owned miscellaneous property because it has already lost its effect by the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality as to the miscellaneous property is just, and it does not constitute an unlawful act like the theory of unconstitutionality in the judgment of the court below. The decision of the party members cited in the theory of lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da8176 delivered on December 24, 191) is not only a specific case where the Constitutional Court provided the opportunity for the decision of unconstitutionality but also a specific case where the Constitutional Court made the decision of unconstitutionality before the decision of unconstitutionality is made, or it is reasonable to recognize the retroactive effect of the decision of unconstitutionality as to a general case which is pending in the court due to the issue of unconstitutionality as well as a case where the request for the decision of unconstitutionality is made. There is no reason to argue that the retroactive effect of the

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

Justices Kim Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)