The administrative agency which has taken the measure of dismissal shall have the burden of proof and assertion as to the fulfillment of the requirements for vicarious execution.

The administrative agency which has taken the measure of dismissal shall have the burden of proof and assertion as to the fulfillment of the requirements for vicarious execution.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 126 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 186 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Head of Seoul Central Government

Seoul High Court Decision 68Gu198 delivered on May 5, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal by Defendant Attorney

The vicarious execution of removal of the main case by an administrative agency shall be permitted only when it is recognized that it is difficult to secure the performance by other means if the plaintiff, who is the person liable to remove the main case, fails to perform his obligation, and that the failure to perform the obligation is extremely detrimental to the public interest. The allegations and burden of proof regarding the fulfillment of these requirements shall be the administrative agency which has issued a high disposition. In light of the records, there is no evidence sufficient to conclude that the failure to perform the obligation to remove the main case is seriously detrimental to the public interest at the time of the highest disposition. Thus, the judgment of the court below with the same purport is just and the judgment of the court below shall not be accepted since there is no illegality of statutory interpretation, such as

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)