Whether the removal part is specified in the guidance letter only "in the case of an extension of the second floor of the cryp coffee shop."

The extension portion of the second floor of a hotel building is limited to 33.9 square meters in front of the second floor, and all of the above extension portion is used as a hotel coffee shop, and coffee shop among the above hotels is used only as its business place. Thus, it can be seen that the defendant specified the object of removal only by stating "the upper floor extension of the second floor of the coffee shop."

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff

The head of Jongno-gu

(1) The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

(2) Litigation costs are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The disposition taken by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on April 16, 1982 on the removal counter execution order on the front and the 2nd floor coffee building (No. 33.9 square) extended by being referred to the five-story building in the front and extended by the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (No. 1 omitted) and the said sub-committee (No. 2 omitted).

The defendant, on April 16, 1982, used the above part of the hotel shop in Jongno-gu Seoul (number 2 omitted) and the 2nd hotel shop building in the Dong office (number 1 omitted) which is owned by the plaintiff on May 1981, ordered the defendant to voluntarily remove the entire 3th floor of the building (area 3.9 square; hereinafter the same shall apply) within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice to the defendant, and ordered the defendant to voluntarily remove the part of the building for the extension of the 3rd floor of the above 2nd hotel shop. The defendant's disposal of the building for the extension of the 2nd floor of the above 3rd hotel shop was unlawful since the above part of the building's 2nd building's construction of the above 3rd coffee building was merely a part of the building building's construction of the 1nd floor and the above part of the building's construction of the 2nd building's construction of the above 4th floor, and the defendant's order to remove the building's construction of the building without dispute.

Then, the plaintiff's construction permit was not obtained prior to the construction of the building portion because the area of the above existing building is extremely limited within the above redevelopment project zone. However, the building portion of the above existing building is constructed with high-quality materials for coffee shop on the first floor which is proposed to be newly extended at the time of the above existing building, and it is more helpful to the urban landscape because it is well-contested with the above existing building or neighboring building, and thus, it does not harm the public interest by leaving it alone. Thus, the defendant's disposal of the above existing building under the premise that it is unlawful, because there is no dispute over the construction permit's construction permit's 1, 2 (each photograph) and the above construction permit's construction permit's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction work's whole construction work's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction permit's construction work's construction work's construction work's construction permit's construction work without permission's consent.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the revocation of the appeal on the premise that the appeal of this case is unlawful is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing plaintiff.

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-sung