Disposition of the removal duty of an illegal building and the dismissal of the removal replacement;

If the plaintiff continued to complete the construction in violation of the construction permit conditions while obtaining a construction permit change from the head of the Gu, and the construction permit was revoked, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the order to remove the illegal building as a matter of course, barring any special circumstances. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for mooring disposition that the order to remove the building is illegal for the reason that it is difficult for the court below to see that the failure to remove the building is seriously detrimental to the public interest by neglecting the duty to remove the building by taking into account only the urban landscape

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Litigation Performers and Voluntary Litigation Agents

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu525 delivered on March 18, 1980

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the building is illegal building which has been reconstructed without permission as prescribed by the Building Act, the plaintiff is obligated to remove the building in accordance with the order of removal. However, in light of the situation surrounding the building where the building is located and the urban landscape, etc., it is extremely difficult to deem that the failure to perform the duty of removal of the building is seriously detrimental to the public interest. Thus, the Ordinance of the court below judged that the building is

However, as determined by the court below, the plaintiff continued the construction of the building, even though the construction of the building was revoked without permission due to the violation of the terms and conditions of the construction permission while rebuilding the building building for the purpose of use by the defendant before rebuilding the building of this case, and the construction of the building for the ground and sapap was revoked without permission (the building becomes a new building which is not a rebuilding or extension if compared to the photographs of the previous building and the photographs of the new building on the record), the plaintiff is obligated to remove the order to remove the building as a matter of course, unless there are special circumstances.

If such interpretation is not made, the authority to regulate illegal construction will be unable to perform the construction administration smoothly because the illegal building completed by the illegal architect is disarmed as a studio fact.

Since such illegal buildings shall not be allowed to construct itself, and it shall be detrimental to the greater public interest to prevent in advance fire-fighting systems, pollution prevention facilities, and other restrictive provisions under the Building Act which are reviewed at the time of completion of construction permission, it shall not be deemed that the original judgment which held that it is difficult to say that it would seriously harm the public interest by neglecting the failure to perform the removal obligation of the building by taking into account only the surrounding situation and urban landscape surrounding the building on which the building is located and only the urban landscape, etc.

Therefore, the original judgment shall not be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Dra-ro (Presiding Justice)