Unauthorized buildings can not be seen as buildings that seriously harm the public interest under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act only on the basis of the facts.

Since the building of this case is in violation of Article 5 of the Building Act, which was completely destroyed and newly constructed after the permission for change of use was obtained, the building is in violation of the said new building. However, in light of the fact that there is a risk that the existing building might become worn out and collapse, and thus, it is located in the end of the existing building and is located in the same place as the existing building and is not harmful to the urban landscape and is not harmful to the urban landscape, it cannot be deemed that the building without permission alone is seriously detrimental to the public interest under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Haak-si

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 81Gu785 delivered on June 15, 1982

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, the court below acknowledged that the building of this case was a newly constructed building in violation of Article 5 of the Building Act after the plaintiff obtained a permit from the defendant on September 18, 1981 to alter the use of the building of this case, which is the building owned by Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-dong 104-1, the building of this case, the building of this case, the building of which the building of this case was located in the redevelopment area and the building of 104-1, the building of this case, the building of this case, which is the building of this case, the building of this case, the building of this case, the alteration of the use of the building, the whole building of 18, the building of 18, the building of this case, the building of which the building of this case, and the building extract 6, the building of this case, the building of this case, which is the building of this case, the building of this case, and the building of this case, the building of this case, the construction of the new building of this case, the new building of this case, the construction of this case, shall be found to be unlawful.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young