level and 36 others (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daegu City Mayor (Attorney Go-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

January 13, 1971

The administrative disposition ordering the plaintiff et al. to voluntarily remove each lot number building on May 29, 1970 and the disposition ordering the plaintiff et al. to voluntarily remove each of the above buildings within seven days from June 22, 1970 shall be revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

The fact that the defendant ordered the plaintiff et al. to remove the building and ordered to remove the building as stated in the order, is without dispute between the parties. The defendant is the owner of the plaintiff et al. and constructed each of the above buildings on the planned road of the city of the city of the defendant, and since the permission to occupy and use the road was not granted, the defendant's disposition is justified under Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act. The plaintiff et al. asserted that the above building site of the building is a river site and the road site of the building is not a river site, and since the plaintiff et al. constructed each building with the permission to occupy and use the river site from the office of the Gyeongbuk-do and with the building permission obtained from the defendant, the house site of the building became a planned road site and the building site of the building was built without the expropriation procedure under Article 10 of

A.3-1, 2, 4-1 to 6, 6-1, 6-1 to 35, 8-1 to 8-1, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 17, 4-1, 2, 5-1 to 32, 6-1, 32, 6-1 to 32, 6-1, 7, 10-1 to 3, 11, 12-1, and 12-1 to 35, comprehensively taking account of the parties’ arguments;

The land for the building owned by the plaintiff, etc. is a river site owned by the State (the first lot number is 11-1 to 165-1-1, 142, 150-1, and 150-1). The non-party Kim Jong-hee, who occupied the building site at the time of around October 1955, occupied the building site with the permission of retaining wall construction from the Gyeongbuk-do branch office, the river management agency, and occupied the building site on March 2, 1956. The above Kim Jong-hee, Kim Jong-hee, the third unit of the house owned by the defendant on the building site, and the new building site is newly constructed on the building site owned by 111-1 to 165-1-1, and the building site is newly constructed on the building site owned by 30-1,000,000,0000,000-1,0000-7,000-7,000.

The defendant asserts that the permission to occupy and use the site of the building in this case is expired and the occupation of the plaintiff et al. is in violation of Article 26 of the River Act. Thus, the defendant can issue the order to remove the building in this case pursuant to the same Act. Thus, the fact that the permission to occupy and use the site of the building in this case has expired until December 31, 1967 is the same as the above recognition, but the order to remove the building in this case under the River Act can be issued by the Gyeongbuk-do branch, the managing agency, but the defendant does not have any grounds for administrative disposition under the same Act, and the above assertion is groundless.

In addition, the defendant, as permission for construction of the building of this case is a temporary building, was attached to the order to remove the building without compensation at any time when the defendant issued the order to remove the building of this case. Thus, the administrative disposition of this case is legitimate. However, the entry of the evidence Nos. 12-2 through 5, No. 14, which is consistent with the defendant's argument, in light of the entry of the above evidence No. 11-2, No. 13, and No. 17, and the result of the party member's verification (building

Therefore, since each administrative disposition of the defendant is clear that it is illegal, the claim of the plaintiff et al. for revocation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

February 17, 1971

Judges Lee Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)

[Attachment Omission (List)]