Kim Jong-sung (Attorney Kim Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Busan Metropolitan City Do;

June 14, 1985

The defendant's disposition on April 18, 1985 against the plaintiff is revoked on the removal counter execution order as to about about 12 square meters at the 6th ground 2nd ground 574 Dong-gu, Busan Special Metropolitan City, Dongdong-gu, 374.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

As of April 18, 1985, the fact that the defendant made a disposition of removal, replacement, and replacement with the plaintiff as of approximately 12 square meters on the 6th ground of the 3rd Dong-gu Busan Special Metropolitan City, Daegu Do, 574.

The plaintiff's representative argues that this disposition against the plaintiff is unlawful since the contents of the vicarious execution are not specified. Thus, vicarious execution as determined by the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is not ordered directly by an Act, or by an order issued by an administrative agency under any Act, and if it is deemed difficult for the administrative agency to secure performance by any other means, or it is extremely detrimental to the public interest to leave the failure, it means that the administrative agency concerned does an act to be done by itself or have a third party do so, and if the person liable to do so fails to perform it by the time limit for its execution, it shall be ordered to order the execution by a reasonable time limit, and if the person liable to do so fails to perform it by the time limit for its execution, it shall be ordered to establish the same 7th floor building site and 4th floor of Busan, and the defendant shall, in order to execute it by vicarious execution, specify the contents of the duty to perform it in accordance with the above 1 to 5th floor and 4th floor of the plaintiff's 1 to 7th floor of the above 5th floor building site and 5th floor of the witness.

Therefore, since the defendant's objection disposition is illegal, the plaintiff's objection claim seeking its revocation is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

June 28, 1985

Judges Ansan-sik (Presiding Judge)