The effect of vicarious execution by a letter containing the purport of the order to remove the building;

The effect of vicarious execution by a letter containing the purport of the order to remove the building;

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na885 delivered on October 4, 1967

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant-appellant, in its explanation of the reasoning, the original judgment is the fact that the plaintiffs owned each of the above buildings without obtaining permission from the Seoul Metropolitan Government, the management agency on the site of the Cheongcheon River in Dongdaemun-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government. The head of Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government determined that the defendant is liable to compensate for damages caused by the non-party's tort on the ground that each of the above buildings constructed on the river site was constructed without permission for the construction of Cheongcheon-dong, Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government for the removal of the above buildings without permission (from the date on which the notice of the order was received) within nine days. Accordingly, the fact that the building was removed on July 9, 1965, and that the removal of each of the above buildings did not meet the requirements under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and thus, the defendant was liable to compensate for damages caused by the non-party's tort.

However, as a requirement for vicarious execution under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, even if the direct order or the order of the administrative agency under the law is required, in the vicarious execution of removal of the same building as in this case, the order is issued within 9 days from the date of service of the certificate No. 3-1 to No. 5, and in addition to the order of removal, if it can be recognized that if the order of removal is not made within the prescribed period, it is included in the document of the name of the order of removal, the above order of removal and the order of guidance are included independently. Thus, the above order of removal and the order of guidance are satisfied. Thus, the above order of removal are judged to have been ordered without the above order of the administrative agency and the above order of the administrative agency are judged to have not been examined in the form of vicarious execution against plaintiffs 1, 3, 6 and 5, and the above judgment of the court below is not erroneous, or there is no error in law or law as to the above order of removal, and there is no reason to reverse the appeal.

Therefore, according to Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)