Appropriateness of the disposition of mooring of an unauthorized building which has been reconstructed with permission for change of use and large-scale repair;

Since the building site of a building is so small that it is impossible to permit renovation because part of the building under repair construction with permission for change of use and substantial repair from the house was collapsed and inevitably demolished the remaining parts, and then re-construction of brick slves building, or if the building is constructed in the same size as the original building site of the building site and is located in four distance and is not harmful to the urban landscape, it cannot be deemed that the act of leaving the above building alone under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act does not cause serious harm to the public interest. Therefore, the defendant's dismissal disposition against the above building is unlawful.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

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

The head of Seoul Shiro Gu

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu1028 delivered on September 28, 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, the court below acknowledged that the building of this case is an unauthorized building constructed without permission under the Building Act, which is a building newly constructed after obtaining permission from the defendant on November 12, 1982 for the alteration of the purpose of use and substantial repair of the building, Jongno-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) ground trees and apap 1 house to 20.57 square meters from the house to the store from the house, while the building of this case was constructed at around 1932, it was located in the parking lot maintenance and the third class aesthetic district, and its site was so small that it was impossible to permit the reconstruction, and the building of this case was destroyed by tin, etc. while the plaintiff obtained permission for the alteration of the purpose of use and substantial repair, and the remaining part of the building cannot be used without permission, and there is no serious violation of the rules of evidence that the building of this case and the building of this case should not be viewed as an unlawful construction within the scope of the building of this case, and there is no serious violation of the rules of evidence that the building of this case and the building of this case.

The issue is groundless.

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 Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)