The interest in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the removal of buildings after the removal of buildings.

The order of removal of a building without the order shall be a defective administrative disposition that needs to be revoked because it fails to meet the legitimate requirements. However, as long as the removal of each building has already been completed by the above order of removal, even if the above order of removal is revoked, it is virtually impossible to recover the rights of the plaintiffs, so there is no benefit to seek the revocation.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Nu25 delivered on May 31, 1965 (Daad 2457, Supreme Court Decision 1167Nu115 delivered on October 13, 1967, Supreme Court Decision 75Nu230 delivered on January 27, 197 (Daad 11178, Supreme Court Decision 24Nu177 delivered on January 27, 197, Supreme Court Decision 1180 pages 1184)

Plaintiff 1 and four others

The head of Dongdaemun-gu

(1) The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 on June 25, 1965 to provide a guidance on the removal of a building on the branch line Nos. 438, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government. The disposition shall be revoked in entirety.

(2) All lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs 1 and 5 are dismissed.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, those arising between Plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 and the Defendant shall be borne by the Defendant, and those arising between Plaintiffs 1, 5 and the Defendant shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs.

The defendant's disposition of guiding the removal of building by proxy against the plaintiffs on June 28, 1965 shall be revoked in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

On June 28, 1965, the fact that the defendant ordered the plaintiffs to remove buildings on the branch line Nos. 438, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government. The plaintiffs' assertion did not conflict between the parties, and thus the plaintiffs' disposition violated the plaintiffs' rights and thus is unlawful. Therefore, in order to take the disposition of the removal of administrative vicarious execution, the obligation to remove buildings on behalf of others under the law or the order of the administrative agency in accordance with the law should be deleted and the non-performance must be done. However, prior to the disposition of the above case, the defendant is a person who did not issue an order to remove the buildings directly to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the defendant's obligation to remove the buildings should be revoked on the ground that the disposition of this case does not meet all legitimate requirements. However, according to the result of on-site inspection and the purport of oral argument, among the plaintiffs' rights, each of the above plaintiffs 1 and 5' rights to seek the removal of the buildings on the basis of the above administrative vicarious execution has already been revoked.

Therefore, we decide to accept only the claims of plaintiffs 2, 3, and 4 who are not yet subject to the vicarious execution, and decide to dismiss the claims of plaintiffs 1, 5 who have already been subject to the vicarious execution, and they are decided as ordered by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Articles 89 and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Do-ju (Presiding Judge)