Whether a tort is established when a building was removed without an order to remove it, although the building was sent, but without an order to remove it.

Even if there was no separate order of removal before sending the order, if the order of removal was issued within nine days in the order of the order, and if the order of removal was not made voluntarily within the prescribed period, the vicarious removal of the building does not constitute a tort even if there was no order of removal.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and five others

Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul Central District Court (66A10859) of the first instance court

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2380 Decided March 26, 1968

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The total cost of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' legal representative claimed that the defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 an amount of KRW 160,000 per annum from July 10, 65 to each full payment date, and the amount of KRW 240,00 per annum from 65.7.10 to 5% per annum on each of the above amounts.

The same shall apply to the order.

(1) The fact that Nonparty 1 removed buildings on the river site in Dongdaemun-dong 436-1, Dongdaemun-gu, Dongdaemun-gu, the head of Dongdaemun-gu Office through administrative vicarious execution on July 9, 65. However, there is no dispute between the parties. The plaintiffs' attorney in order to make a claim by an administrative agency vicarious execution, the plaintiffs' attorney should only be ordered by the law or by the order of the administrative agency under the law, and the non-performance should only be ordered before making a disposition for the extension of vicarious execution, and the warrant of vicarious execution should be required even after making the disposition for the dismissal.

However, the above non-party issued an order of removal to the plaintiffs who are the owners of the above buildings without any order of removal on June 28, 65, and removed it without a warrant of vicarious execution. Since the above non-party, who is the public official belonging to the defendant, did not unlawfully infringe the plaintiffs' ownership, the building recorded in the attached Table 1, the building recorded in the attached Table 2, the building recorded in the attached Table 2, the plaintiff 2, the building recorded in the attached Table 3, the building recorded in the attached Table 3, the plaintiff 4, the building recorded in the attached Table 4, the building recorded in the attached Table 5, the plaintiff 6, the building recorded in the attached Table 5, and the plaintiff 5, each owner of the building listed in the attached Table 7, who is the owner of the building listed in the attached Table 7, sought compensation for damages against the defendant at the market price at the time of the removal of

(2) However, considering the whole purport of evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-1, 3-1, 3-5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-1, 6-1, 2-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-2, each of the above witnesses and non-party 3's testimony and arguments before remanding and after remanding the case, the building recorded in the attached list was constructed without permission of the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the site of the Cheongcheon-dong, Changcheon-dong, Dongdaemun-dong, Cheongcheon-dong, Seoul (the permission was granted to the non-party 4 as of March 12, 54, which was the expiration of the period as of March 11, 56) without permission of the Mayor of the Seoul Metropolitan City (the permission period was considerably obstructed in the construction of the Cheongcheon-dong and Cheongcheon-do road construction implemented by the urban planning project and the order for the removal of the above building to the non-party 1, who is the head of Dongdaemun-gu Office, could not voluntarily remove the building.

(3) Thus, this building is entitled to order the removal of the plaintiffs under Article 57 of the River Act by the president of Dongdaemun-gu, the managing agency of the Cheongcheon-gu, and did not separately issue a removal order before sending the Cheongcheon-gu letter, but it is acknowledged that the head of Dongdaemun-gu, ordered the removal within 9 days from the delivery date of the order and, in addition to the removal order, the head of Dongdaemun-gu, ordered the removal to the effect that if the removal is not carried out voluntarily within the prescribed period, the removal order is already put to the effect that the vicarious execution is already put in place, and therefore, the removal order executed by the head of Dongdaemun-gu, the head of the managing agency of the Cheongcheon-gu with respect to the building is included in the removal order, and therefore, the removal order executed by the head of the Cheongcheon-gu, the removal order executed

(4) Therefore, since the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, they shall be dismissed. Accordingly, since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, the original judgment shall be revoked, and the burden of litigation costs shall be determined as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List]

Judges Hong Nam-nam (Presiding Judge)