Whether there is a benefit in the protection of rights to seek the cancellation of a warning disposition in case where a vicarious execution is substantially completed by the guidance disposition of Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.

With respect to an act ordered to the person under obligation pursuant to Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, in case where the vicarious execution has already been executed as a factual act by the guidance of Article 3 of the same Act, after the act has been executed as a fact, there is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek the cancellation of the disposition, even after the act has been committed.

Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff 1 and 34 others

Do Governor of Gyeonggi-do;

All of the lawsuits are dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The order of the defendant to remove the title in each of his domicile and the apap 2-story store and one house against the plaintiffs on February 7, 1972 is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The facts that the defendant ordered removal, mooring, and removal of each building stated in the purport of the claim against the plaintiffs on February 7, 1972 do not conflict between the parties, and according to the testimony of the non-party witness, this building can be recognized as a fact that all the buildings were removed from September 10, 1972 to September 12, 199. As to the acts ordered by Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, in the case of the acts ordered by the obligor under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, after the act of vicarious execution has already been completed as a fact by the guidance of Article 3 of the same Act, the claim for cancellation of the disposition is without any benefit of the protection of rights. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim for cancellation of each order for cancellation of each order of provisional disposition is unlawful, and it cannot be corrected. Accordingly, the decision on the merits is dismissed in entirety, and the decision on the costs of lawsuit cannot be corrected. It is so decided as per Disposition with Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 89 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Yong-su (Presiding Judge)