The case holding that the removal and mooring disposition is legitimate, in case where the two-story factory buildings are changed into the four-story general buildings with their structure and use at all different levels due to the excessive expansion of the area of the illegally constructed construction without permission, and there is no possibility to be legalized.

The case holding that the removal and relay disposition is legitimate on the ground that the area of illegal construction is too large, and the structure and use of the 2nd factory building was changed to the 4th general building which is entirely different from that of the 4th general building due to the unauthorized extension of the area without permission, so if the portion of illegal construction is left unattended as it is, it would endanger the smooth performance of construction administration by nullifying the authority that regulates illegal buildings, and it would endanger the smooth performance of construction administration by avoiding the authority of the authority that regulates illegal buildings, and it would undermine the greater public interest.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Na-tae, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

The Prosecutor General (Attorney Cho Chang-won, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 94Nu5144 delivered on October 28, 1994

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Gu4508 delivered on August 18, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The lower court: (a) deemed that one story of the existing 181.32 square meters of the building of this case was installed on the 181.32 square meters of the previous 2nd floor; and (b) changed the previous 2nd floor area into a house; (c) decided on July 23, 1993 that the Defendant would order the Plaintiff to remove the above illegally constructed parts; and (d) the Defendant did not use the same portion as the previous 1970 square meters of the building without permission for the construction of this case; (b) the construction of this case was constructed on the 1970 square meters of the previous 1985 square meters of the building; and (c) the construction of this case’s 194 square meters of the previous 2nd floor of the building without permission for the removal of the existing 2nd floor of the building; and (d) the construction of this case’s 13th square meters of the height of the building without permission for the removal of the existing 6th floor; and (e) determined that the construction of this case’s 2nd.

However, even according to the facts found by the court below, the above illegally constructed portion was too big, and the structure and use of the second-story factory building was eventually changed to the fourth general building which is entirely different from that of the above without permission. However, if the illegally constructed part, which is not likely to be legalized due to the circumstances recognized by the court below, should be neglected only on the ground of the circumstances recognized by the court below, it would endanger the smooth execution of construction administration by nullifying the authority that regulates illegal buildings, and would prevent the avoidance of various restrictions provided by the Building Act from being prevented in advance, thereby impairing the greater public interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Nu385, Aug. 14, 1992; 94Nu1354, 11361, Jun. 29, 195).

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for mooring measures, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for mooring measures, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the issue to point this out is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)