(a) In a case where one document of the title of the order of enlightenment is a document of the name of the order for voluntary removal of an illegal building within a certain period and, at the same time, the intention of the voluntary removal is informed in advance when the order is not voluntarily removed within the fixed period, whether the order for removal and the disposition for mooring are appropriate (affirmative);

B. In the case of Paragraph (a) above, if the period given in the order of removal is a considerable period required for voluntary removal, whether the period should be deemed to include "reasonable implementation period necessary for guidance" in the order of removal (affirmative)

(c) Details and scope of the order to remove buildings in violation of the Building Act, and specific methods of the act to be performed by vicarious execution upon nonperformance of such obligation;

A. One document of the title of the order for the voluntary removal of a illegally constructed building within a certain period of time, and if the order is not voluntarily removed within the fixed period of time, the order for the removal under the Building Act and the order for the removal under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act are independent, and each of the requirements is satisfied.

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, if the period given in the order of removal is a considerable period required for voluntary removal, it shall be deemed that the period includes "reasonable implementation period necessary for guidance" in that period.

C. In making an accusation, the act to be performed by the person liable, and the contents and scope of the act to be performed by the vicarious execution should be specified in detail when the person liable for the performance is not responsible for the performance. However, whether the act is specified shall be sufficient to the extent that the person liable for the vicarious execution knows the location, structure, reputation, etc. of the actual building and makes a comparison and examines it.

Article 42 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991); Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Da2380 delivered on March 26, 1968 (No. 16) (Gong181) 78Nu114 delivered on December 26, 1978 (Gong1979,11701). Supreme Court Decision 90Nu1070 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong191,1192) 91Nu4607 delivered on February 25, 1992 (Gong192,1183) 91Nu8623 delivered on May 12, 192 (Gong192,186)

Plaintiff-Appellant Lee Byung-he et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Market for the United States

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu4746 delivered on November 15, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The order of voluntary removal of an illegal building within a certain period of time, and at the same time, when the voluntary removal of an illegal building is not made within the prescribed period of time, the order of removal under the Building Act and the order of dismissal under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act are independent and the requirements of the order are satisfied (see Supreme Court Decision 78Nu114 delivered on December 26, 1978). In this case, if the given period of time in the order of removal is a considerable period of time required for the voluntary removal, the order of removal under the Building Act and the order of removal under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act are included in the corresponding period of time.

The issue is that it is illegal because it is combined with the removal order and the settlement order and it is not allowed under the current legal system, and it is not possible in the nature of the vicarious execution, on the other hand, to deprive the person responsible for the guidance, of the ‘reasonable performance period', or it is merely an independent opinion, and it cannot be accepted.

In addition, since it is apparent that the plaintiff did not make the above assertion in the court below, it cannot be said that the court below's failure to make a decision on this issue is an omission of judgment. All arguments are without merit.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the guidance, the act to be performed by the person liable for performance, and the contents and scope of the act to be performed by vicarious execution when the person liable for performance fails to perform it, shall be specified. However, whether it is specified is sufficient for the person liable for vicarious execution to know the location, structure, reputation, etc. of the actual building and to know the scope of the person liable for performance by comparing it (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu4607 delivered on February 25, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu10070 delivered on March 12, 191). According to the records, even if it is based only on the use, size of the violation, and descriptions in the letter of the instant order, even if it is based on only on the purpose, size of the violation, and what is described in the column, the plaintiff can easily know the building to be removed. Therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss that the object of the instant order is not specified

3. As to the third ground for appeal

The court below held that the buildings of this case were newly constructed or expanded without permission from December 1, 1984 to January 1, 1987, and there is no violation of law of mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence. The arguments are without merit.

4. Accordingly, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)