Whether an unauthorized building with an improvement and repair instruction may be deemed to seriously undermine the public interest solely on the basis of the fact

Even if the instant building is located within a park site under the Urban Planning Act and is in violation of Article 5 of the Building Act by setting up such instructions as to only the minimum improvement and repair necessary for the maintenance and management, and rebuilding the sections of the building, it is difficult to view that the existing building and its location are identical to the existing building and its location, and in light of the fact that the present building is more appropriate in light of the urban landscape and its current building due to sanitation, leaving the building alone under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act cannot be deemed to seriously undermine the public interest.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Nu349 Decided December 14, 1982

Yongcheon Major

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu510 decided April 14, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the building of this case is located in the park site under the Urban Planning Act, which is composed of kitchens and fountains, the building of this case is not permitted to extend or rebuild all of the existing building under each provision of the Building Act, and the head of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on March 29, 1982, ordered that the building of this case be its owner by allowing the improvement or repair necessary for the maintenance and management only to the existing temple, and the plaintiff also made a report on the renovation and repair of the building of this case to the head of the competent Dong on June 11 of the same year, and the construction of the building of this case is too old, and the danger of collapse is likely to occur during its repair, and the building of this case is considerably unreasonable in light of the legal principles as seen above, the building of this case is no longer likely to be altered or repaired, and there is no other reason to believe that the building of this case is no more suitable building than the building of this case to be repaired or repaired without permission for the urban landscape of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)