Whether it is an independent administrative disposition that is subject to revocation litigation after the expiration of the period of postponement, which is subsequent to the disposition of removal of a building in three times, the disposition of removal of a building in question, the disposition of removal of a building in question, the administrative litigation is dismissed as illegal, and the procedure of vicarious execution is not followed.

In a case where the removal of a building was made three times, and the administrative litigation was dismissed, and the procedure for vicarious execution was not carried out for a long time after the expiration of the extension period, and the procedure for vicarious execution was re-scheduled through a separate map after the expiration of the extension period, and the present situation was partially changed due to the implementation of the construction of a road, such measures shall not be deemed to have been merely a notification to urge the removal of a building by the previous map or to postpone the period of vicarious execution, rather than to withdraw the previous mooring disposition finalized through the litigation procedure and impose a new removal obligation on the removal obligor. Therefore, it shall not be deemed to have been an independent administrative disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 2(1)1 and Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 93Nu21156 delivered on February 22, 1994, 94Nu5144 delivered on October 28, 1994

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others

The head of Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (the head of North Korea before the modification)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Gu28432 delivered on August 30, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

All costs of a lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court, based on the following facts, accepted the Defendant’s voluntary disposal of the instant building 7,359 square meters prior to Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, and rejected the Defendant’s voluntary disposal of the said 7,359 square meters, 180 square meters, 48 square meters, 272 square meters, and 312 square meters, etc. for the purpose of removing the said building on the ground that the Defendant’s disposal of the instant building was not carried out for a prolonged period of time on the ground that the said disposal was not carried out by the Plaintiff’s voluntary disposal of the said 7,359 square meters, and that the Defendant was not carried out on the said 9,000 square meters prior to the said disposal of the building on the ground that it was not carried out by the Defendant’s previous disposal of the said building on the ground that it was not carried out for a new disposal of the said building on the said 19,000 square meters prior to the said disposal of the building on the ground that it was located within the development zone.

2. However, if the facts are as determined by the court below, the order of this case by the defendant shall be deemed to be merely a notification to urge the removal of a building by the previous senior disposition or to postpone the deadline for vicarious execution, rather than to withdraw the previous senior disposition which became final and conclusive through litigation procedures and impose a new removal obligation on the plaintiff. In this case, it shall not be deemed to be an independent administrative disposition subject to the revocation lawsuit.

Therefore, the court below rejected the defendant's defense of safety, which is the subject of an independent administrative disposition that is subject to a revocation lawsuit, and judged on the merits. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the disposition subject to a revocation lawsuit, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground for appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is sufficient to render a final judgment as a member of the court below. Since the lawsuit of this case is not subject to a revocation lawsuit, and it is obvious that it is unlawful as it is subject to it, it is dismissed. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party, by the assent of all

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)