Whether the order to remove the building under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is subject to the administrative litigation.

Even though the removal order under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is a prerequisite for the restraint of the order, it does not directly cause any change in the specific rights of the prestigiouss, but it is merely an administrative disposition that has the quality of recommendation and aptitude, which is subject to administrative litigation.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

The action shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The order of removal issued by the Defendant to the Plaintiff under the Act No. 10741-282 of January 25, 1969 shall be revoked.

(1) In light of the Plaintiff’s cause of the claim, on September 15, 1919, the Plaintiff purchased 50 square meters of the 337-1 forest land in Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, Seongbuk-gu and completed the registration of preservation of ownership on March 5, 1968 on and after the construction of the 1st and 24 square meters of the 1st and sapapap, the Plaintiff purchased 337 forest land from Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership on and after the building in the name of the Plaintiff on March 5, 1968. The Defendant

However, the plaintiff and the defendant do not dispute that the order of removal of this case is an administrative order that recommends voluntary removal in accordance with Article 42 of the Building Act, which is a prerequisite of the order of removal of this case, and there is no dispute that the order of removal has yet been issued.

However, the original administrative disposition, which is the object of an administrative litigation, refers to an administrative agency's sole act that directly changes the specific rights and obligations. As seen above, the removal order of this case, as it has the recommended nature, is merely a prerequisite for the prior disposition, and it itself does not cause a direct change in the plaintiff's specific rights and obligations. Therefore, it cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that is the object of an administrative litigation on the premise that it is an administrative disposition that can be subject to an administrative litigation, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case, which is based on the premise that it is an administrative disposition that can be subject to an administrative litigation, cannot be deemed unlawful.

(2) Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit without examining the merits. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Judge)