1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court:

Forms 11 through 16 of the judgment of the first instance shall be amended to the following:

“A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant building was closed by the Defendant and thus made it impossible to enter and use the instant building. However, according to the above facts, the head of Gangnam-gu, an administrative agency, issued a voluntary order to remove the instant building based on Article 79 of the Building Act, etc. on the ground that the instant building was an unauthorized building, and completed the removal of the instant building through the administrative vicarious execution under the warrant of administrative vicarious execution, following the mooring of the building. Therefore, the Defendant’s removal of the instant building pursuant to the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act was an administrative compulsory execution without any legal basis, and it cannot be deemed that the instant building was closed under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act on the ground that the Plaintiff failed to perform his/her duty of voluntary removal, a replacement order under the Building Act, under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act. The Defendant’s removal of the instant building cannot be deemed an administrative compulsory execution without any legal basis. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was insufficient to acknowledge that there was no illegality in the order to remove the instant building and mooring the instant building and the procedure for vicarious execution.”

Part 3 of the decision of the first instance shall be deleted.

2. Additional determination

A. As to the assertion that the instant building is a legitimate building, the Plaintiff’s assertion is about the acquisition of land, etc. for public works and compensation therefor, as the instant building was constructed before January 24, 1989.