1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the reasons for this case are the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the Defendant’s new assertion or second-emphasizing argument in the trial; and (b) therefore, (c) the same shall apply by the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. Determination 1 on the gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) In a case where an implementer of an urban development project seeks to withdraw a building occupant pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act, he/she may file an application for the implementation of administrative vicarious execution with the Mayor/Do Governor and the Mayor of a large city, etc. to implement it. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the implementation of the eviction by civil litigation is unlawful as there is no legal interest in the lawsuit. 2) In a case where the administrative agency can realize the performance of the duty of alternative act, such as the removal of a building, by means of administrative vicarious execution, as the case

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da213916 Decided April 28, 2017 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da213916, Apr. 28, 2017). As to the instant case, an implementer of an urban development project may, if necessary under Article 38(1) of the Urban Development Act, relocate or remove buildings, etc. located in an urban development zone, and if a person who occupies buildings, etc. and is obstructed by such relocation or removal, he/she may request the occupant to leave for the smooth realization thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da89549, Sept. 5, 2014). In addition, there is no provision that recognizes the procedures for vicarious administrative execution in relation to the eviction of an occupant of an urban development project, such as the Plaintiff, in the Urban Development Act, inasmuch as the said occupant’s duty of eviction cannot be