A. The legal nature of policies to grant a building permit to an unauthorized building located within a development-restricted zone among the guidelines for promoting village structure improvement projects by including it in the subject of housing improvement.

(b) The case holding that the cancellation of the disposition for dismissal cannot be claimed on the ground that there is a defect, such as mistake in the fact that the person excluded from the object of housing improvement in paragraph (a);

A. Among the contents of the guidelines for the promotion of village structure improvement projects in 1985 directed by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, a certain range of unauthorized buildings located within a development restriction zone shall be included in housing improvement targets, and the policies to grant a building permit is not legally binding as the guidelines for administrative affairs inside an administrative agency with no legal basis.

B. The case holding that it is not possible to seek the cancellation of the order for dismissal on the ground that there is a defect such as error in the matter excluded from the object of housing improvement in the above paragraph (a).

A. Article 5 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) (B) Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff-Appellant Park Hong-woo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu973 delivered on September 10, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 1 purchased the above 1 house and 2 houses constructed by the non-party 1 to the above 8-year village improvement guidelines, and the non-party 1 to the above 9-year village improvement guidelines for the housing constructed by the non-party 1 to the above 8-year village construction, and the non-party 1 to the above 9-year village improvement guidelines for the housing constructed by the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 8-year village improvement guidelines, and the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the above 9-year village improvement guidelines.

(2) In addition, according to the above guidelines, the above housing improvement is to remove the building in a site where the residential environment is inferior in a development-restricted zone and to build the building on the site that will be constructed in the future, and even if there is any defect such as error that the defendant excluded the building in this case from the housing improvement subject, even if there is a defect in the fact that the defendant excluded the building in this case from the housing improvement subject to the above improvement, it is not possible to seek the cancellation of the above apartment disposal.

(3) In addition, since the Gu building has already been removed around the building of this case and only new buildings based on the above village structure improvement project may cause harm to the urban landscape if the building of this case is left alone without removing the permitted building of this case, and the fact that the building of this case continues to exist for several hundred and twenty years, it cannot be said that the removal of the building of this case without permission goes against the public interest.

The court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts, incomplete deliberation, misunderstanding of legal principles and lack of reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)