B. Whether the suspension of execution is a requirement to suspend the execution, even if it is not clear that the request for the merits is not well-grounded by the suspension of execution of the above "A" itself (affirmative)

(c) The case holding that an applicant's application for suspension of execution with respect to an alteration of the form and quality of land without permission and an application for suspension of the effect of removing buildings on behalf of the applicant who constructed and used the building illegally on part of the constructed garage

B. The suspension of execution under the above "A" shall not be likely to have a significant impact on public welfare. This system aims to protect the status of an applicant and prevent the applicant from rendering a judgment in favor of him/her at the same time until he/she receives a favorable judgment in the lawsuit on the merits of the case. Thus, it is contrary to the purport of the system that recognizes the validity of the disposition or the suspension of execution, even though there is no possibility of revocation of the disposition in the lawsuit on the merits of the case, so it should be included in the requirements for suspension of execution that the applicant's request

(c) The case holding that the requirements for suspension of execution are not satisfied for an applicant who violated Article 4 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 5 of the Building Act to apply for suspension of execution with respect to the removal, replacement, execution, and dismissal of a building by an administrative agency, with the alteration of the form and quality of the land by performing the suspension work to construct a garage which is an automobile-related facility without permission, and newly constructed 6 container gate gate gate gate gate

In case of an application seeking suspension of the validity of an administrative disposition or suspension of execution, the validity of the administrative disposition itself is not determined in principle through a deliberation in the original case, and it is not determined in principle, and it is subject to the existence or absence of the requirements under Article 23(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act as to whether to suspend the effect or execution of the administrative disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 91Du1, Mar. 2, 1991; Decision 91Du15, May 2, 1991; 91Du15, May 2, 199). Furthermore, it is allowed that suspension of execution is not likely to seriously affect public welfare (see, e.g., Article 23(3) of the Administrative Litigation Act). The purpose of this system is to prevent an applicant from rendering a favorable judgment at the same time as before receiving a favorable judgment in the principal case, so recognizing the validity of the disposition or the suspension of execution without possibility of revocation in the principal case is contrary to the purport of the system.

According to the records, the site of this case is adjacent and designated as a general residential area belonging to the scenic zone under the Urban Planning Act, and there is prohibition of changing the form and quality of land, building illegal buildings, and building of automobile-related facilities. The other party (applicant) changed the form and quality of the land by stopping work to construct a garage which is an automobile-related facility without permission, and further, as part of the garage constructed, container low-end facilities (this case's site of this case is installed in the site of this case where there is no moving device, necessary office or window, electricity facility is installed in the site of this case, and it is not easy to move with the entrance and window, building room, warehouse, etc.) without permission, and it violates Article 4 of the Urban Planning Act and Article 5 of the Building Act. Since it harms the public interest such as the protection of residential environment and maintenance of natural morals of city, and harming urban development without permission, it is highly likely that the other party to this case's request for suspension of execution will remove the site of this case without permission and its removal of the other party to this case's claim for suspension of execution.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for suspension of execution under Article 23 of the Administrative Litigation Act, which affected the conclusion of the decision. Therefore, the ground for appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the application for suspension of validity of the other party (applicant) is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)