[건물철거계고처분취소][공1990.8.15.(878),1587]
The case holding that the removal, maintenance, and removal of an illegal building constructed in disregarding the construction suspension order issued by the competent authority is legitimate.
If the Plaintiff completed the instant building on a legal holiday or night by taking account of the orders for the suspension or removal of construction or the measures for accusation against it, which are several times by the Defendant, the competent authorities, the mere fact that the unlawful building was merely good in light of the urban landscape or sanitation, thereby impairing the smooth performance of the construction administration, and thus impairing the neighboring building such as fire-fighting systems, parking facilities, traffic flow facilitation, height of the building, etc. at the time of permission and completion inspection pursuant to the Act, building-to-land ratio for protecting the proper living environment, building-to-land ratio for protecting the proper living environment, and other restrictive provisions of the Building Act, it cannot be justified or offset that the removal-to-sale disposition against the instant building is legitimate.
Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act
Kim Han-Gyeong
Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Affairs
Busan High Court Decision 89Gu1889 delivered on February 9, 1990
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.
A. On March 1986, the court below held that the defendant's disposal of the building in his/her jurisdiction was an order to improve the environment by putting the building in front of international events, such as the Asia's regional assembly and the 6th Asian game, and recommended residents to improve the environment by putting the height of the building on top of 370 square meters. The plaintiff holding 17.7 square meters at 370 square meters of the building site in Busan, Daegu, Daegu, operated an environmental improvement project according to the defendant's recommendation around 1986, while complying with the Building Act and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and administrative authorities' instructions, and did not take measures beyond the scope of environmental improvement projects, such as the extension of the building by doping, and thus, the court below's determination that the construction of the building in question and the 1986th local assembly could not be justified if the building in question was destroyed and the construction of the building in question and the construction of the building in question could not be seen as being in violation of the laws and regulations of the building in question.
As pointed out in the theory of the lawsuit, the conclusion that the defendant's disposition of the removal of the building of this case is legitimate on the ground that the plaintiff paid the acquisition tax and property tax imposed on the building of this case.
Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)