Cases not showing that failure to comply with a removal order on a building would seriously undermine the public interest;

In rebuilding a building, where the building has been constructed in an adjacent area which has been used in violation of the Civil Act from the borderline to the former owner without keeping a distance from the borderline, it shall not be recognized that the failure to perform the removal name is very detrimental to the public interest.

Article 42 of the Building Act

Plaintiff

The head of Yongsan-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu261 delivered on July 21, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts lawfully. In other words, the plaintiff was not at a distance of not less than a half of the area stipulated in Article 242 of the Civil Code from the boundary of the plaintiff's own site in Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City ( Address 1 omitted) No. 27 square meters and apap 2 buildings owned by the defendant from October 25, 1965. The plaintiff was not at least 0.53 square meters from the boundary of the plaintiff's own site (e.g., the size of which is at least 0.53 square meters as part (a) indicated in the attachment drawings) and (e., the boundary of about 5 square meters from the land owned by the plaintiff's own property belonging to the above land (the size of which is 2 omitted) at approximately 20/3 square meters and is at least 0.265 square meters from the original judgment (the size of which is 0.265 square meters as part of the wall of this case).

Therefore, as seen above, the court below's decision is just in holding that in the case of the plaintiff's reconstruction of his own building above the site owned by the defendant with the permission of the defendant, it did not set a statutory distance as above, and that in the case of the plaintiff's reconstruction of his own building within the limit of the ownership already infringed upon from the pre-owner's point of view, it cannot be recognized that the non-performance status of the plaintiff in the order to remove the building as to the above (a) (b) is left alone and it is very detrimental to the public interest. As such, in the case of the plaintiff's reconstruction of the building, the court below did not survey the boundary line of the building site and did not start the construction without going through the completion inspection, use the building without going through the completion inspection, and even if the plaintiff submitted the certificate No. 3 of his theory to the defendant in spite of the plaintiff's submission of it, it cannot be justified and justified in finding that it is only a case where the plaintiff's non-performance is seriously detrimental to the public interest, which is the premise of the disposition.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong