requirements for measures taken in order and the validity of administrative disposition without authority;

1. In order to supplement the removal of a building, an order of removal should be issued on the premise thereof, and it can only be done so that the removal of the building would seriously undermine the public interest.

2. Since the head of the Gu does not have the authority to order the prohibition of use of a building with a total floor area of not less than 200 square meters, the disposition against this order is unlawful

Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Nu18 delivered on August 23, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 2406 delivered on November 23, 1968, Article 42 (1) 1831 of the Building Act) 75Nu218 delivered on December 9, 1975 (Supreme Court Decision 11095 delivered on November 1095, Supreme Court Decision 23Nu41 delivered on April 23, 201, Article 3 (7) 59 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Court Gazette 529No 8870 delivered on July 29,

Plaintiff

Head of Daegu Mayor, Daegu Head of Jung-gu

The order issued by the head of the Daegu City/Gu against the plaintiff that the Daegu City would prohibit the use of the same building under No. 7 of Sep. 13, 1967 to remove the buildings entered in the list after the date of September 7, 1967 and the order issued by the plaintiff that the head of the Gu would prohibit the use of the same building under No. 4541-6593 of the Daegu City/ Daegu City.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The same shall apply to the order.

In order to lease Nonparty 1’s business office, the Plaintiff was unable to use the building 60-2, 60-7, 59-2, 63 on the 6th floor of Daegu-si, and applied for permission to rebuild 1 jute 1 and 1 jute 2 from Daegu-si (No. 231, 1967 and No. 1, 1967) for the same purpose as the 6th anniversary of the construction order of the 1st Do governor, and the 1st 5th Do governor’s order to remove the building 6th 7th Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s 7th Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s Do governor’s 5th Do governor’s 1.

Next, in light of the provisions of Article 4 of the Building Act and Article 2-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the authority on Article 42 of the same Act cannot be delegated to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu having jurisdiction over the establishment of the Gu, and according to the Gap evidence No. 6, there is no dispute over the establishment of the Gu, the building is a special building and three buildings are used collectively, and the total floor area of the building is more than 200 square meters, and it is apparent by its assertion that it will be more than 20 square meters, so it shall not be delegated to the head of the Gu under the same

Therefore, even if the head of the Si of Daegu City delegated his authority from the defendant Daegu City, the order prohibiting the use of this case cannot be deemed unlawful as an order issued by a non-authorized person.

Thus, the order for the order of the order of the succession and the order for the prohibition of use is all unlawful and must be revoked. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the order shall be justified and accepted, and the burden of litigation costs shall be determined as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Song-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Ho-young fixed right