Open Decision Ledger · Constitutional, administrative & state liability
Redemption exercise period outside the unconstitutional occurrence limit
Supreme Court, July 16, 2026, 2026Da202526 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the Constitutional Court's decision of 26 November 2020 declaring unconstitutional the part of Article 91(1) of the former Act on the Acquisition of and Compensation for Land etc. for Public Works that limits when a redemption right may arise, and the retroactive effect of the amending Act, also reach the limit on when that right must be exercised?
Holding
In principle it does not. The unconstitutionality ruling concerned only the ten-year limit on when a redemption right arises, and the amending Act deleted that limit and extended the exercise period, but in the absence of a separate transitional provision the retroactive effect reaches only the part that was the subject of the ruling. Where a right had already arisen under the former provision and had expired under the former exercise period before the amending Act took effect, the extended exercise period does not apply to it.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
그러나 위 헌법불합치결정이 구법 조항 중 환매권의 발생기간 부분에 관한 것인 이상 위 헌법불합치결정 및 그에 따른 개선입법의 소급효 역시 헌법불합치결정의 대상인 환매권의 발생기간 부분에 한하여 미치고, 별도의 경과 규정이 없는 한 이와 직접 관련이 없는 환매권의 행사기간 부분에는 개선입법의 소급효가 미치지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
However, inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of nonconformity with the Constitution concerns the part of the provisions of the former Act relating to the period for the arising of the right of repurchase, the decision of nonconformity with the Constitution and the retroactive effect of the ensuing remedial legislation likewise extend only to the part concerning the period for the arising of the right of repurchase, which was the subject of the decision of nonconformity with the Constitution, and, unless there is a separate transitional provision, the retroactive effect of the remedial legislation does not extend to the part concerning the period for the exercise of the right of repurchase, which is not directly related thereto.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
별도의 경과 규정이 없는 한 이와 직접 관련이 없는 환매권의 행사기간 부분에는 개선입법의 소급효가 미치지 아니한다.
Unofficial English translation
Unless there is a separate transitional provision, the retroactive effect of the remedial legislation does not extend to the part concerning the period for the exercise of the right of repurchase, which is not directly related thereto.
Factors
- 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제91조 제1항 중 환매권의 발생기간을 제한하고 있는 ‘토지의 협의취득일 또는 수용의 개시일부터 10년 이내에’ 부분에 대한 헌법불합치결정
- 환매권의 발생기간 제한을 삭제하였고
- 종전의 ‘토지의 전부 또는 일부가 필요 없게 된 때부터 1년 또는 그 취득일부터 10년 이내’에서 ‘사업의 폐지·변경일 또는 사업완료일부터 10년 이내’로 대폭 연장하였다
- 별도의 경과 규정이 없는 한 이와 직접 관련이 없는 환매권의 행사기간 부분에는 개선입법의 소급효가 미치지 아니한다
Unofficial English translation
• The decision of nonconformity with the Constitution rendered with respect to, in paragraph (1) of Article 91 of the former Act on the Expropriation of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, the part restricting the period for the arising of the right of repurchase, namely 'within 10 years from the date of negotiated acquisition of the land or the date of commencement of expropriation,'
• deleted the restriction on the period for the arising of the right of repurchase, and
• extended it substantially from the previous 'within 1 year from the time when the whole or part of the land ceases to be needed or within 10 years from the date of its acquisition' to 'within 10 years from the date of abolition or change of the project or the date of completion of the project'
• Unless there is a separate transitional provision, the retroactive effect of the remedial legislation does not extend to the part concerning the period for the exercise of the right of repurchase, which is not directly related thereto
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
위 헌법불합치결정이 구법 조항 중 환매권의 발생기간 부분에 관한 것인 이상
Unofficial English translation
Inasmuch as the aforesaid decision of nonconformity with the Constitution concerns the part of the provisions of the former Act relating to the period for the arising of the right of repurchase
Decisions referred to
헌법재판소 2020. 11. 26. 선고 2019헌바131 전원재판부 결정(헌공290, 1502)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the legislature were to add a transitional provision extending the exercise period of redemption rights that had already expired under the former provision, would that provision revive them?
A later decision extending the retroactive effect of the 2020 unconstitutionality ruling to the exercise period would change this reading. An amendment to Article 91(1) of the Act or to its Supplementary Provisions that adds a transitional rule would also require the entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 6 (relation to precedent).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The explicit separation of retroactivity for accrual and exercise periods can be read as a new standard, but the supplied text does not identify whether earlier precedents established that distinction.
위 헌법불합치결정이 구법 조항 중 환매권의 발생기간 부분에 관한 것인 이상Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Gwangju High Court, Jeju, in its judgment of 11 February 2026 (Jeju) 2025Na10173, dismissed both plaintiffs' damages claims. As to Plaintiff 1, it held that the first land had not been acquired by agreement for the Middle Road OOO Project but had been taken as residual land of the Middle Road △△△ Project, so the claim built on a different premise failed. As to Plaintiff 2, it held that the plaintiff's suit was an ordinary case filed on 22 June 2022, after the unconstitutionality ruling, but that the ruling concerned only the occurrence period, that the Supplementary Provisions added no further transitional rule beyond applying the amended provision to rights still exercisable when it took effect, and that the redemption right over the second land had already been extinguished by expiry of the exercise period under the former Article 91(1).
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error. On Plaintiff 1's appeal, although parts of the reasons were somewhat inappropriate, the conclusion was sound and there was no misapplication of law to the disposition document or omission to examine the requirements for residual land. On the defendant's appeal, it held that the redemption right over the second land had already arisen under the former provision, that the part of the amended Article 91(1) extending the exercise period was unrelated to the unconstitutionality ruling and applied only through Article 3 of the Supplementary Provisions to cases in which the right was still exercisable when the Act took effect, and that since this right had been extinguished before the amended provision took effect, that provision could not apply to it. It also held that Supreme Court Decision 2023Da316790 of 25 July 2024, cited by the defendant, concerned the opposite situation and was not apt here, and dismissed both appeals by unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the ten-year occurrence period under the former provision had already passed when the public need disappeared, so that the redemption right arose only after the Constitutional Court decision, as in Supreme Court Decision 2023Da316790.
- A case in which a separate transitional provision extends the exercise period of a redemption right that had already arisen under the former provision.
- A case in which the land became unnecessary by abolition or change of the project while the amended Article 91(1) was in force, so that provision applies directly.
Record verification notes
Fix the date on which the redemption right arose under the former provision, here the agreed acquisition of 23 June 2011, and the date the land became unnecessary, here the notice on 7 December 2018 lifting the natural-disaster risk improvement district designation. Then test the exercise against the former one-year and ten-year periods, and only then against Article 3 of the Supplementary Provisions of Act No. 18386, since the Court applied the extended period only to rights still exercisable when the Act took effect. Keep apart any claim about how the land was acquired, such as whether it was project land or residual land, since Plaintiff 1's claim failed on that ground alone.
From the official text
Points at issue
구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제91조 제1항 중 환매권의 발생기간을 제한하고 있는 ‘토지의 협의취득일 또는 수용의 개시일부터 10년 이내에’ 부분에 대한 헌법불합치결정 및 그에 따른 개선입법의 소급효가 위 조항 중 환매권의 행사기간 부분에도 미치는지 여부(원칙적 소극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the decision of nonconformity with the Constitution rendered with respect to, in paragraph (1) of Article 91 of the former Act on the Expropriation of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, the part restricting the period for the arising of the right of repurchase, namely 'within 10 years from the date of negotiated acquisition of the land or the date of commencement of expropriation,' and the retroactive effect of the ensuing remedial legislation extend also to the part of the aforesaid paragraph concerning the period for the exercise of the right of repurchase (in principle, negative)
Summary of the holding
헌법재판소는 2020. 11. 26. 구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2021. 8. 10. 법률 제18386호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제91조 제1항(이하 ‘구법 조항’이라 한다) 중 환매권의 발생기간을 제한하고 있는 ‘토지의 협의취득일 또는 수용의 개시일부터 10년 이내에’ 부분에 대한 헌법불합치결정을 하면서 입법자가 개정할 때까지 위 법률조항 부분의 적용중지를 명하였다. 그 후 구법 조항은 2021. 8. 10. 법률 제18386호로 개정되었는데 개정법률 제91조 제1항(이하 ‘신법 조항’이라 한다)은 공익사업의 폐지·변경으로 취득한 토지의 전부 또는 일부가 필요 없게 된 경우 관계 법률에 따라 사업이 폐지·변경된 날 또는 제24조에 따른 사업의 폐지·변경 고시가 있는 날부터 10년 이내에 그 토지에 대하여 받은 보상금에 상당하는 금액을 사업시행자에게 지급하고 그 토지를 환매할 수 있고, 그 밖의 사유로 취득한 토지의 전부 또는 일부가 필요 없게 된 경우에는 사업완료일부터 10년 이내에 그 토지에 대하여 같은 방법으로 환매권을 행사할 수 있다고 규정하고 있다. 또한 위 개정법률 부칙 제1조는 "이 법은 공포한 날부터 시행한다."라고 규정하고, 부칙 제3조는 "제91조 제1항의 개정규정은 이 법 시행 당시 환매권을 행사할 수 있는 경우에도 적용한다."라고 규정하고 있다. 위 헌법불합치결정은 구법 조항 중 환매권의 발생기간을 ‘토지의 협의취득일 또는 수용의 개시일부터 10년 이내’로 제한하고 있는 부분이 헌법에 위반된다는 것이다. 이에 따라 개정된 신법 조항은 환매권의 발생기간 제한을 삭제하였고, 그 외 환매권의 행사기간도 종전의 ‘토지의 전부 또는 일부가 필요 없게 된 때부터 1년 또는 그 취득일부터 10년 이내’에서 ‘사업의 폐지·변경일 또는 사업완료일부터 10년 이내’로 대폭 연장하였다. 그러나 위 헌법불합치결정이 구법 조항 중 환매권의 발생기간 부분에 관한 것인 이상 위 헌법불합치결정 및 그에 따른 개선입법의 소급효 역시 헌법불합치결정의 대상인 환매권의 발생기간 부분에 한하여 미치고, 별도의 경과 규정이 없는 한 이와 직접 관련이 없는 환매권의 행사기간 부분에는 개선입법의 소급효가 미치지 아니한다.
Order
상고를 모두 기각한다. 상고비용 중 원고 1의 상고로 인한 부분은 원고 1이, 피고의 상고로 인한 부분은 피고가 각 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
All appeals are dismissed. Of the costs of the final appeal, the portion attributable to the final appeal of Plaintiff 1 shall be borne by Plaintiff 1, and the portion attributable to the final appeal of the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.
Provisions referred to
구 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률(2021. 8. 10. 법률 제18386호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제91조 제1항, 공익사업을 위한 토지 등의 취득 및 보상에 관한 법률 제91조 제1항, 부칙(2021. 8. 10.) 제1조, 제3조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger