[건물철거및대집행계고처분취소청구사건][고집1979특,264]
Whether a building subject to vicarious execution has already been removed by a vicarious execution, whether there is a benefit to protect the rights of the lawsuit claiming the revocation of such revocation.
Where a building subject to vicarious execution is completely removed by a vicarious execution even if the disposition of vicarious execution is illegal, there is no benefit to protect the right to seek cancellation of the disposition of vicarious execution.
Articles 1, 2, and 3 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Maximumness
Cheongnam-do Head of Chungcheongnam-do
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The order of dismissal that the Defendant ordered voluntary removal of the structures listed in the separate sheet on February 28, 1979 by March 31, 1979 shall be revoked.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
In full view of the contents of evidence No. 4 without dispute in the formation, if the defendant does not remove the building on the attached list, which is owned by the plaintiff, to the plaintiff on February 28, 1979, by March 31 of the same year on the ground that the building violates the provisions of paragraph (2) of the Addenda to the Park Act, it can be seen that the defendant ordered the plaintiff to carry out vicarious execution in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.
With respect to the plaintiff's attorney's seeking revocation on the ground that the above disposition on vicarious execution was illegal, since the defendant's litigation performer had already removed the above building by the vicarious execution, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. Thus, even if the guiding disposition on vicarious execution is unlawful, if the building subject to vicarious execution is completely removed by the vicarious execution, there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek cancellation of the order on vicarious execution. Thus, since there is no dispute between the parties that the building subject to vicarious execution was completely removed by the vicarious execution on April 3, 1979, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful without examining whether the above order on vicarious execution was illegal.
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.
For the purpose of this Act, a judge's regular succession (Presiding Judge)