[건물철거대집행계고처분취소][공1989.9.1.(855),1258]
Requirements for the disposition of mooring and repair of an illegally extended building;
Even if the removal is required by increase or remodeling in contravention of the Building Act, if it is difficult to secure the implementation of other methods in order to take measures to vicariously carry out the removal obligation under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, it shall be limited to the case where the failure to carry out such measures is deemed to seriously undermine the public interest.
Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act
Supreme Court Decision 86Nu860 Delivered on March 10, 1987
Plaintiff
The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 87Gu1371 delivered on October 18, 1988
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
Even if there is a duty to remove due to increase or remodeling in violation of the Building Act, in order to take measures to vicariously execute the removal obligation under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, it is difficult to secure the implementation by other means, and it is limited to the case where neglecting the failure is deemed to seriously undermine the public interest (see Supreme Court Decision 86Nu860 delivered on March 10, 1987).
According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the building of this case was 1,2,3 square meters above the ground surface of 82 square meters, 44.72 square meters above the rooftop, 5.31 square meters above the 46.80 square meters above the ground floor, and the 1,2 and the 3th floor above are used only for others, and the 1,2 and the 3th floor are removed from the 1st floor because there are no different kitchens from the 1st floor due to the design of the 1st floor, and the 1st floor and the rest of the 1st floor are used for the removal of the 1st floor above the 1st floor and the rest of the 3th floor above the 1st floor and the 1st floor of the 3th floor above the 1st floor of the building without permission for the removal of the 1st floor and the removal of the 1st floor above the 1st floor without permission for the removal of the 1st floor without permission for the removal of the 3th floor.
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 Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)