2012Guhap2812 Disposition of revocation of disposition of revocation of disposition of vicarious administrative execution.

1. A;

2. B

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Kim Tae-tae

A person shall be appointed.

Law Firm Maduk, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Gyeong-soo

May 16, 2013

June 27, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

On October 5, 2012, the defendant revoked the disposition of mooring administrative vicarious execution (voluntary removal) in a natural park that was made to the plaintiffs on October 5, 2012.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. A is the owner of each building or facility (hereinafter referred to as the "building, etc. of this case") indicated below in the table located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, 000, and the building of this case is located in the nature conservation district of the park of the new U.S. Park of the new U.S. Park.

B. On July 22, 2009, the Defendant issued an order to voluntarily remove the instant building by August 30, 2009, pursuant to Article 79(1) of the Building Act, on the ground that the instant building, etc. invadedd the D Park area and constructed the D Park area. On July 23, 2009, the Defendant notified a warning that the restoration plan for the illegal act on July 23, 2009 was the removal by August 20, 2009.

C. On October 9, 2009, the Defendant notified A of the revocation of the creation of a building ledger pursuant to Article 12 of the Rules on the entry and management of the building ledger, and on October 12, 2009, notified A of the purport that the enforcement fine will be imposed if he/she did not comply with the plan by October 30, 2009, under Article 24(1) of the Natural Parks Act.

D. On November 9, 2009, A filed an administrative litigation against the Defendant for revocation of the Defendant’s creation of the above building site under this Court 2009Guhap2997, which was primarily revoked and sought confirmation of invalidity in preliminary, but the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered on August 25, 2010. On September 9, 2010, A appealed and dismissed the appeal on January 28, 201, and on February 16, 201, and dismissed the appeal on June 9, 201, respectively.

E. On July 12, 201, July 29, 2011, July 16, 201, and August 16, 2011, the Defendant notified A that the instant building, etc., which was installed without obtaining permission to engage in natural park activities under Article 23(1)1 of the Natural Parks Act would be performed if it fails to perform its duties (hereinafter “instant order for removal”) by issuing a removal order under Article 31 of the Natural Parks Act.

F. A did not remove the instant building, etc., and the Defendant, on September 3, 201, issued an order to remove the instant building on December 2, 2011, the Defendant issued a notice to A that the instant building will be carried out by vicarious administrative execution in a natural park, with a total of four occasions on October 5, 2012, which notifies A that the instant building will be carried out if he/she fails to carry out, (hereinafter referred to as “in sequence”), for an illegal administrative execution in the natural park, (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”).

G. Meanwhile, on January 17, 201, Plaintiff B used the inspection, namely, “E” for a rental period of 10 years from the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Ulsan-gun No. 000, No. 13, No. 884§³ No. 9, and approximately 31 square meters on the ground of 361, a rental period of 10 years. On July 19, 2011, Plaintiff B commenced rehabilitation proceedings with this Court No. 2011 Joint 12, and was appointed as an official interest. The manager was replaced by G on January 3, 2013.

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1-11, Gap evidence 7-1 to 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The instant building, etc. is a cultural heritage with high preservation value for religious facilities and the folklore of Korea, and the Plaintiffs are in consultation with the Defendant on measures for preservation, not removal. On October 5, 2012, the instant building, etc. is a vicarious administrative execution disposition for the instant building, etc. conducted against the Plaintiffs (No. 4)

The disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition of this case") must be revoked because it is illegal because it deviatess from or abuses discretion or violates the principles of this sub-bridge.

3. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful

A. The defendant's defense prior to the merits

The instant disposition for which the Plaintiffs sought revocation is merely an instruction to take measures on July 23, 2009, or a voluntary removal order on July 12, 201, or a notification of demand to take measures on September 3, 201, and thus cannot be deemed an independent administrative disposition subject to revocation lawsuit. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is unlawful.

of this chapter.

(b) Relevant statutes;

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the "relevant Acts and subordinate statutes".

C. Determination

1) In a case where a person fails to comply with the first order of removal and thus a vicarious dismissal was made, the duty of removal under the Administrative Agent Execution Act was already caused by the first order of removal. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the person is obliged to remove the administrative agent, and only is a notification demanding the performance of the previous order of removal, it cannot be deemed that the person is an independent administrative agent subject to the revocation lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Du4665, Feb. 22, 2000; 2002Du12618, Jun. 10, 2004).

2) According to the above facts in this case, A’s obligation to remove the instant building, etc. is deemed to have been caused by the first removal order issued by the Defendant under Article 31 of the Natural Parks Act to A on July 12, 2011, and thereafter, the instant order to remove the instant building and the instant order to remove the first removal order is merely a notification demanding the implementation of the first removal order, and thus, it cannot be deemed an independent administrative disposition subject to revocation lawsuit, since the instant order to remove the building is merely a notification demanding the implementation of the first removal order.

3) Therefore, the disposition of this case, which is the disposition of this case, for which the plaintiffs seek revocation, is not a disposition subject to the revocation lawsuit, and thus, the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiffs is unlawful because it violates Article 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act.

4. Conclusion

We decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case against the defendant by the plaintiffs. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-dae

Judge Senior Professor

Judges Min Il-young