A. The Plaintiff is operating the potteries points in Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B and C (hereinafter “instant land”). The Plaintiff owns each object indicated in the “type of goods” column in the attached Table on the ground of the said land (hereinafter “instant obstacles”).

B. On July 21, 2015, the instant land was designated and publicly announced as a site for the “E development project” as the notification of Chungcheongbuk-do, and the Chungcheongbuk-do Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation on July 21, 2015 to expropriate the instant land and relocate the instant obstacles. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff reserved an objection from the Chungcheong Development Corporation, the project implementer of the said development project, and the Korea Industrial Complex Corporation, and received compensation for the said expropriation.

C. On December 16, 2015, the Defendant: (a) ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily move the instant obstacles by January 4, 2016; and (b) ordered the Plaintiff to voluntarily carry out the procedure for vicarious execution pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act; and (c) ordered the Plaintiff to perform the procedure for vicarious execution pursuant to Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 14 (which has a serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The delivery of a building cannot be the object of vicarious execution under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act. The obligation to transfer the goods retained in the building is an inevitable act that entails the performance of the duty to deliver the building, and thus, cannot be the object of vicarious execution, since it itself does not constitute an independent obligation. 2) The act to be performed by the obligor and the content and scope of the act to be performed by the vicarious execution should be specified in detail when the obligor fails to perform. The instant disposition was unlawful since the content and scope of the act to be performed by vicarious execution are not specified.

3. Of the obstacles in the instant case, 200 years.