Whether it is impossible to harm the public interest solely on the ground of urban aesthetic view if a building subject to removal is reconstructed without permission.

When the plaintiff himself/herself filed a lawsuit to remove and execute a building which became final and conclusive as a removal height, he/she has constructed a hole only on the wall of the building, completed its execution, and then repaired the building without going through the procedures prescribed in the Building Act, it is obligated to remove the building without permission, and the building itself is unable to perform the construction administration smoothly and is very harmful to the public interest because it does not neglect it as it is in spite of the order of removal by the competent administrative agency, and it is extremely harmful to the public interest with the reasons of the surrounding environment and urban landscape. It is unlawful to conclude that there is no damage to the public interest on the grounds of the urban landscape.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Nu252 Delivered on September 24, 1980

Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-gu et al., Counsel for defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Gu46 delivered on July 21, 1983

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the above site where the building was constructed with the removal of the existing building of this case, and the above building was constructed with the removal of the existing building of this case, the court below held that the construction of the building of this case was not carried out by the non-party 1, and the removal of the existing building of this case by the non-party 5 and 66 can be carried out with the removal of the existing building of this case by the non-party 5 and the removal of the building of this case by the non-party 5 and the removal of the existing building of this case by the non-party 5 and the removal of the existing building of this building of this case by the non-party 1, 700 square meters away from the construction of the new building of this case. According to the above construction of the new building of this case, the court below held that the removal of the existing building of this case by the non-party 2 and the removal of the new building of the new building of this case by the removal of the new building of this case by the non-party 1, it is difficult to 2, as it.

2. As determined by the court below, if the building was repaired by executing removal of the building which is the object of removal established in a civil procedure by drilling a hole into several places only on the wall surface of the building, piling up bricks on the wall excavated without due process of establishing a sub-building act, and attaching outside the wall, it is recognized by the court below that it is an illegal building which has been reconstructed without permission and has an obligation to remove it in accordance with the removal order. The plaintiff himself/herself is not able to smoothly perform the construction administration and to cause severe damage to the public interest because it makes it impossible for the plaintiff to leave it as it is without the order of removal issued by the competent agency (see Supreme Court Decision 80Nu252 delivered on September 24, 1980). It does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to public interest, and it cannot be said that there is no reasonable issue in the reply to this conclusion.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Jeon Soo-hee (Presiding Justice)