Whether the delegation of authority requires legal basis or not.

According to the Building Act Articles 42(2), 5, and 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of the Busan Metropolitan City, and the Mayor of the Si established by the Gu may delegate part of his/her authority to the head of the Gu, as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act. However, since matters other than this limit are limited to those requiring permission for the market, such as substantial repair of buildings, important changes, etc., and there are no regulations to delegate authority, matters other than the authority to delegate shall not

Article 42 of the Building Act, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff

The head of Seoul Shiro Gu

The defendant's disposition of removal, transfer, and removal of a building under construction on the site of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government realizing 263 site against the plaintiff on August 12, 1969 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

If Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 4-1, which has no dispute over the establishment of the construction, verify the contents of Gap evidence No. 4-1, and present arguments between the parties in the appraisal result, the plaintiff, after obtaining permission from the defendant for construction (the contents of the construction) on the site entered in the order, has been constructed in the course of construction, and the construction area is different from the contents of the permission, and the fact that the disposition of the entry in the order has been taken in accordance with Article 42 of the Building Act and Articles 2 and 3(1)

Therefore, it is examined whether the head of the Gu has the authority to cancel the permission or approval of the illegal building under Article 42 of the Building Act or to order other necessary measures such as suspending its effect.

According to the provisions of Articles 42(2) and 5 of the Building Act and Article 4(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of the Busan Special Metropolitan City, and the Mayor of the Si where the Gu is established may delegate part of his authority to the head of the Gu under the conditions as prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, but the permission of the market such as the construction, substantial repair, and important alteration of the products (excluding buildings with a total floor area of at least 300 square meters or more from buildings other than special buildings and special buildings and buildings with at least four floors and buildings in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, the Mayor of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Mayor of the Busan Special Metropolitan City, and other areas deemed necessary by the Mayor) is limited to those which require the permission of the head of the Gu, and there is no provision that the head of the Gu may delegate his authority to the head

Thus, the order of this case issued by the head of the defendant based on Article 42 of the Building Act is a disposition made by an unauthorized person and the decision on the remainder of this case is unlawful. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation is justified, and it is accepted, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing person.

Judges Yong-Ank, Myun (Presiding Judge)