209luu10 Suspension of Execution

1. New○○ (xx-xx)x;

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Dong-gu - -

2. Reference (xx-xx)x; and

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Dong-gu - -

3. Professor (xx-xx)x;

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 - -

4. 백▷ ♤ (xxxxxx-xxxxxxx)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Dongsan 56

5. 박♤☆ (xxxxxx-xxxxxxx)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 - -

6. Nai (xx-xx)x;

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Dosan 145-1

7. 서♥ (xxxxxx- xxxxxxx)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 -

8. 3VO (xx-xx).

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 -

9. 나 ♠○ (xxxxxx-XXXXXXX)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Dong-gu Do-gu

10. Former Belgium (xx-xxx)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Dosan 151

11.차 ▲ (xXXXXX-XXXXXXX)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 -

12. 엄♥♡ (xxxxxx-xxxxxxx)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 - -

13. 김■ ♠ (xXXXXX-XXXXXxx)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 -

14. 박▶▲ (xxxXXX-XXXXXXX)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Dong-dong

15. 노★♤ (xxxxxx-XXXXXXx)

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 - Does

16. The outline;

Gwangju Dong-gu 00 Do- Do-

Applicant's Law Firm Kangsan, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, Lee Jae-sik, Lee Jae-sik, Lee Jin-kak, Lee Jin-kin, Lee Byung-kin

Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor

Doctrine of the litigation performer, Yang, Park Jong-gu

Gwangju District Court Order 2009A54 dated June 2, 2009

August 18, 2009

1. The appeal is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the respondent.

1. Purport of request;

On April 29, 2009, the respondent's disposition to conduct a vicarious administrative execution for the applicants shall be suspended until the judgment of the case of the request for revocation of the disposition of vicarious administrative execution between the applicants and the respondent is rendered.

2. Purport of appeal;

The decision of the first instance shall be revoked. All of the applicants shall be dismissed.

1. Case history

According to the records, the following facts are substantiated.

가. 피신청인은 2000. 1.경부터 ▷♠♠도립공원 내 무질서한 노후불량 건축물을 정비 하고 상가 및 이주단지를 조성하기 위하여 개발계획수립을 위한 용역에 착수하고, 수 차례에 걸쳐 공원위원, 자문교수, 주민대표 등으로 구성된 자문회의에서 논의를 거친 후 , 2001. 11. 29. 도립공원 내에 위치하는 집단시설지구(상가 등 ) 의 면적을 축소 하여 자연환경지구로 복원하고 , 기존에 시설계획된 여관부지를 폐지하여 녹지로 전환 하며, 상가위치를 현재의 주차장 및 주변 농경지 지역으로 이전하고, 사찰 ① 주 변공간을 시민광장 및 휴식 모임공간으로 조성하며, 주차장을 공원 밖의 생산녹지지역 으로 이전하여 공원지구 내의 시설물을 공원지구 밖으로 이전하는 것을 주요 골자로 한 ♠♠도립공원 증심사집단시설지구 공원계획 변경안에 대하여 D♠♠도립공원위원 회의 심의를 거쳐, 2001. 12. 7. 아래와 같은 내용의 ▷♠♠도립공원계획의 변경결정을 하고, 이를 2001. 12. 11. 광주광역시 제2001-160호로 관보에 고시하였다 .

♠♠도립공원 기본계획 변경결정 )

1. 공원구역의 명칭 및 종류 : ▷♠♠도립공원

2. Area of a park area: 30.230§¯;

3. Plan for special-purpose district (unit: K2m2 and %);

A person shall be appointed.

(c) A natural settlement district plan (referring to a map: 57,256 square meters - None of any change therein);

(c) Collective facility district (unit: Site size);

A person shall be appointed.

(c) Collective facility district (unit: Shall be omitted);

B. Pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Natural Parks Act and Article 15 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, the respondent posted on June 15, 2006 the following “decision on the implementation plan of park projects” on the Official Gazette under Article 2006-87 of the Gwangju Metropolitan City’s Public Notice on June 15, 2006:

1. 사업의 명칭 : D♠♠도립공원 증심사집단시설지구 자연환경복원사업 2. 사업시행자의 성명 및 주소

(a) Name: Gwangju Metropolitan City Mayor;

(c) Address: 410, Seo-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City (Seoul Metropolitan City 1200);

3. The location, area, and size of the project site;

(a) Location: A day-time member of the Organizational Center in Gwangju Metropolitan City, Dong-gu;

(c) Area: 146,910 square meters;

(c) Scale: Parking lots, bus chassiss, commercial complexes, maintenance and restoration, ecological restoration, mountain trails, etc. (the details of the commercial transactions)

approximates)

4. Project period: from June 2006 to December 2008

5. The details of land to be used or expropriated and the names and addresses of the owners of the building protocol and interested parties: as attached.

[hereinafter]

다. 피신청인1)은 " ♠♠ 도립공원 증심사집단시설지구 자연환경복원사업"(이하 ' 이 사건 사업'이라고 한다.)에 편입되는 토지 및 지장물건의 실태조사에 착수하면서 신청 인들을 포함한 그 소유자 및 점유자들에게 손실보상의 일반적인 절차를 "토지 · 물건 등 실태조사 및 조서 작성 → 보상계획 공고 및 열람 → 보상협의회개최 → 보상액 산 정 ⇒ 손실보상 협의요청 → 계약체결 및 보상금 지급"이라고 소개하면서 적정보상과 원활한 사업추진을 위한 협조를 당부하였다.

D. From December 4, 2006, the respondent intended to conduct a basic survey on land obstacles included in the project in the project in this case, but the residents, including the applicants, refused the investigation, notified the applicant white paper, etc. on May 11, 2007 that the investigation is resumed from May 16, 2007, and the new audience continuously opposed to the investigation of the respondent's obstacles, and the respondent requested a cooperation in the investigation of the building by sending official questions several times until March 17, 2008 or by visiting the applicants by the staff in charge).

마. 한편, 피신청인은 2007. 3. 24. 신청인들에게 이 사건 사업의 보상계획의 열람 및 이의신청기간을 2007. 3. 26. ~ 2007. 4. 10.로 정하여 통지하였고, 신청인들의 조사거 부에 따라 2008. 3. 3. 및 3. 24. 이 사건 사업의 보상계획의 열람 및 이의신청기간을 2008. 3. 26. ~ 2008. 4. 10.로 정하여 다시 통지하였으며, ♣♣♣감정평가법인, 쇼에 셋평가법인, ♤☆감정평가법인을 감정인으로 선정한 후 2008. 4. 15. 신청인들을 포함 한 18세대의 주민들에게 2008. 4 . 22. ~ 2008. 5. 9. 기간에 지장물 등에 대하여 감정 평가를 하겠다고 통지하였다.

F. The respondent requested 18 residents including the applicant on three occasions on July 9, 2008, July 28, 2008, and August 22, 2008 to consult on compensation pursuant to Article 16 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor (hereinafter “Public Works Act”), and Article 8(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act of the same Act, the compensation consultation period from July 14, 2008 to July 28, 2008; from July 31, 2008 to August 14, 2008; and from August 22, 2008 to September 5, 2008, each applicant has refused to comply with the request.

G. On November 2008, the respondent applied for the adjudication of expropriation to the Central Land Expropriation Committee around November 2008 on the ground that there was no agreement on compensation for the acquisition of land incorporated into the project in the instant case and obstacles, and the respondent applied for the adjudication of expropriation. After applying for the adjudication of expropriation, the respondent was aware of the applicants while conducting a basic survey on obstacles and business for the adjudication of expropriation and an appraisal of expropriation of obstacles to the said investigation from January 6, 2009 to January 9, 2009, and subsequently, the applicants agreed to the basic survey and appraisal of the said investigation to ensure that the basic survey and appraisal of obstacles should be conducted in cooperation with the said investigation.

H. Upon the application of the respondent for the adjudication of expropriation, the Central Land Tribunal set the timing for the acceptance of the instant private business on February 26, 2009 as of April 21, 2009 and decided to expropriate the relevant land and goods, and the respondent notified the applicant of the receipt of the compensation under the above adjudication of expropriation by April 3, 2009, and deposited the compensation for expropriation with the Gwangju District Court on April 16, 2009, in accordance with Article 40 of the Public Works Act, the applicant did not comply therewith.

I. On the other hand, on April 29, 2009, the respondent specified the lot number of the land he owns and deposited compensation for expropriation of each land as above. Thus, the applicant shall transfer (such as removal, transplantation, removal, etc.) obstacles until April 21, 2009, which is the time of expropriation, and deliver the land to the respondent who is the project implementer. However, the applicant fails to perform this, the applicant shall transfer the land within seven days from the delivery date of the report and request the delivery of the land after moving the obstacles, and if the land is not implemented by the above date, the respondent shall perform the vicarious execution in accordance with Article 89 of the Public Works Act and Article 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act (hereinafter referred to as the "the order disposition in this case").

차. 이 사건 사업의 시행구역인 ▷ ♠♠도립공원 증심사집단시설지구에는 원래 총 91 세대(상가 60, 주택 31)가 음식점영업을 하거나 거주하고 있었는데 이 사건 사업시행 이후 현재까지 그 중 75세대가 이주를 완료한 상태이다.

2. The applicant's assertion and judgment

A. Applicant's assertion

이 사건 계고처분은 , 이 사건 사업시행의 근거가 되는 ♠♠도립공원계획 자체의 부존재, 공익사업법에서 규정하는 수용재결 신청 전 협의절차의 불이행, 지장물 및 영 업에 대한 조사절차 불이행 등의 절차적 하자가 있으며, 또한 이전이 불가능한 가옥 등에 대하여 취득(수용)재결이 아닌 이전재결을, 토지 · 물건의 인도의무와 같은 비대체 적 작위의무에 대한 행정대집행계고처분을 하고 , 행정대집행대상을 불특정하는 등의 실체적 하자가 있어 위법하고 , 그 위법의 정도는 중대하고 명백하며 , 이러한 위법한 이 사건 계고처분이 효력을 유지하여 이후의 행정대집행절차가 진행될 경우 신청인들에게 회복하기 어려운 손해가 발생할 염려가 있으므로 이를 예방하기 위하여 그 효력집행을 정지시킬 긴급한 필요가 있고, 이 사건 계고처분의 효력을 정지한다고 하여 그것이 공 공의 복리에 중대한 영향을 미칠 우려도 없을 것이므로 이 사건 계고처분의 효력을 정 지할 보전의 필요성도 있다고 주장한다.

B. Determination

(1) Whether the instant order was lawful

First, it is examined whether the respondent's disposition of this case is related to the duty of alternative act that can be the object of administrative vicarious execution.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provides that "in case where a person liable to perform an act ordered directly by Act (including any order issued by delegation of Act and any Municipal Ordinance of a local government), or by an act conducted by another person on behalf of another person through an order issued by an administrative agency under any Act, fails to perform such act, if it is difficult to secure the implementation by other means, and it is deemed extremely detrimental to the public interest to neglect the nonperformance, the administrative agency concerned may perform the act to be done by the person liable to perform by himself or by having a third person do it, and collect the expenses therefor from the person liable to perform it." Thus, the administrative obligation that the administrative agency can secure the implementation under the above provisions of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is limited to the obligation that the other person performs on behalf of him, that is, the obligation that the other person can perform, and even if it is a duty of act, the substitution is not

In addition, Article 43 of the Public Works Act provides that "the landowner or person concerned, who is not a landowner or person concerned, or who has rights to the land to be expropriated or used or to be expropriated or used, shall transfer the land or goods concerned to the project operator by the commencement date of expropriation or use." Article 44 (1) provides that "the Governor of a Special Self-Governing Province, the number of Sis/Guns/Gus, or the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall vicariously transfer or relocate the land or goods upon the request of the project operator if it falls under any of the following subparagraphs." Article 43 (1) 1 provides that "If a person liable to transfer or relocate the land or goods fails to perform his/her obligations without any negligence," subparagraph 2 provides that "if a person liable to transfer or relocate the land or goods is unable to identify a person liable to transfer or relocate the land or goods without any negligence, 90 (1) provides that "the person liable to perform such obligations by this Act or any disposition by this Act is also deemed to be a substitute one of the Mayors/Do Governors or the heads of the above."

In the instant order disposition against the applicants of the Respondent, it is unreasonable to interpret that the main purpose of this case is to transfer (such as removal, transplantation, removal, etc.) or remove from the building the land and buildings owned by the applicants located within the project implementation zone of this case to transfer or order the Respondent to transfer or order the above land and buildings to the applicant. Ultimately, it is unreasonable to interpret that the part ordering the removal of the building, etc. is the main purpose of the construction project of this case, and that the part ordering the removal of the building, etc. is to transfer the building, etc. to another area, and it is not reasonable to interpret that the actual purpose is to impose the obligation to order the applicant to move the building, etc. from the building that is an obstacle to the applicant to the other area. Accordingly, it is not necessary to determine the remaining argument of the applicants as the disposition of the non-alternative obligation that is not subject to administrative vicarious execution.

(2) Whether preservation is necessary or not

First, we examine whether there is an urgent need to prevent irrecoverable damage caused by the enforcement of the instant order or the continuation of procedures.

The "damage which is difficult to recover" is a loss which cannot be compensated with money unless there are special circumstances, which means a loss without compensation where monetary compensation is impossible or where monetary compensation is considerably difficult to obtain reference due to social notion. The following circumstances revealed in the above facts are likely to proceed in order, such as notification by a warrant of vicarious execution, execution by vicarious execution, and collection of expenses for vicarious execution after the order of the present case. If the follow-up procedure of the disposition of the present case is conducted, the applicants are found to lose the benefits even if the illegality of the disposition of the present case is recognized in the disposition of the present case of the revocation of disposition of the disposition of the provisional vicarious execution, which is the case of the suspension of the execution of the effectiveness of the present case, the above loss is a tangible and intangible loss which is considerably difficult to suspend with reference to the applicants, and it is also necessary to prevent the above "emergency loss" in Article 23 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act.

나아가 이 사건 집행정지가 '공공복리에 중대한 영향을 미칠 우려'가 있는지에 관하 여 살피건대, 이 사건 집행정지로 인하여 D♠♠도립공원 증심사집단시설지구를 통과 하는 등산객들의 불편은 일부 예상이 되나, 이 사건 기록에 의하면, D♠♠도립공원 증 심사시설지구를 통과하는 등산로 이외의 다른 등산로에의 통행은 여전히 가능한 것으 로 보이고, 피신청인이 신청인들의 수용토지 인도 및 지장건물 이전의무와 관련하여 새로이 신청인들에게 행정대집행계고처분을 하고, 이에 대하여 신청인들이 다시 광주 지방법원 2009구합2924호 행정대집행계고처분취소소송과 같은 법원 2009092호 계고 처분효력집행정지신청을 제기하여 이 사건 계고처분의 효력유지가 절대적으로 필요한 것으로 보이지도 않는 점 등을 알 수 있는바, 위와 같은 사정에 비추어 보면, 이 사건 집행정지가 공공복리에 중대한 영향을 미칠 우려가 있다고 보기에 부족하고, 달리 이 를 인정할 자료가 없다.

(3) Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the respondent’s measure of the instant order against the applicant on April 29, 2009 was urgently needed to prevent irrecoverable damage to the applicant, and that the suspension of execution is likely to seriously affect public welfare.

3. Conclusion

Thus, all of the applicants' applications of this case shall be accepted in their reasoning, and the decision of the court of first instance is justifiable with this conclusion, so the respondent's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Theaterability (Presiding Judge)

Kim Sung-ju

1) All the procedures for the project in this case shall be the Gwangju Metropolitan City Urban Corporation (competent department: Compensation.

팀)가 이 사건 사업시행자인 피신청인의 대리인으로서 처리하였다. 2) 2007. 12. 11. 방문시에는 이 사건 신청인 중 곽◇◆, 문 , 신□■, 신○○, 노★♤, 엄♥ ①, 김■ ♠, 나□△, 백▷ ♤, 서♥ , 나♠○, 최♥▦ 등을 방문하였고, 2008. 3. 10. 방문시에는 이 사건 신청인 중 문○ , 신□■, 신 , 노★♤, 엄♥♡, 김■ ♠, 서♥ , 나□△, 백▷♤, 나♠○, 최 0 등을 방문하였으며, 같은 달 17. 방문시에는 이 사건 신청인 중 문○ , 신미 ■, 신 , 노★♤, 엄목희, 김■♠, 서♥ , 나□△, 백▷♤, 나♠○, 최♥▦ 등의 신청인들은 주소지에 부재하거나 보상금 저렴, 생활대책마련의 사유를 들거나 명백한 이유없이 그 조사를 거부하였다.

3) Meanwhile, acceptance of prisoners, etc. for a project operator under Article 43 of the Public Works Act

even if the delivery of land or the obligation to clarify its obstacles, etc. is legal relations under public law,

such a right as the right to be preserved shall not cause significant loss to the right; or

may be allowed if there is a reason or reason to prevent an imminent danger.

It should be viewed that it is reasonable to view (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2809, Aug. 19, 2005).