원상회복 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. Nonparty C, the mother of the Plaintiff, resided in the instant building and died on March 10, 2016. On March 17, 2016, the head of Gangnam-gu issued a corrective order against the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the instant building by issuing an order to voluntarily remove the non-compliant building to his/her surviving family on March 11, 2016, while the resident died on March 11, 2016. Nonparty C, the mother of the Plaintiff’s mother, issued an order to voluntarily remove the non-compliant building to his/her surviving family members by March 28, 2016. The result was submitted in accordance with the form “D village situation room.” If Nonparty C failed to comply with the corrective order within the said period, the head of Gangnam-gu planned to perform vicarious execution under Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.”
B. On April 1, 2016, the head of Gangnam-gu, who did not voluntarily remove the instant building, ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the said building and voluntarily correct the said building by April 8, 2016. The head of Gangnam-gu, who ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily remove the said building; and ordered the Plaintiff to vicariously execute the instant construction if the Plaintiff failed to perform the construction by the said date.
C. However, on April 14, 2016, the head of Gangnam-gu issued a writ of vicarious administrative execution and performed the vicarious removal of the instant building on April 15, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that C, the mother of the Plaintiff, resided in the instant building, died on March 10, 2016. On March 12, 2016, the Defendant’s housing and the affiliated D village situation room verified the Plaintiff’s death by telephone, and issued temporary closure measures against the Plaintiff on March 12, 2016. However, the Plaintiff was unable to enter and use the instant building by installing each item and wire network at the entrance of the instant building.
This is in accordance with Article 79 of the Building Act.