Effect of an instruction and disposition that does not specify the contents and scope of the act of vicarious execution;

In the case of an administrative agency's appeal for vicarious execution, the contents and scope of the act of vicarious execution should be specified in detail if the obligor fails to perform it by itself, and the disposition lacking specific specification is unlawful.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Nu92 Decided September 11, 1984, 85Nu257 Decided September 10, 1985, Supreme Court Decision 85Nu314 Decided December 24, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Plaintiff Intervenor 1 and 7 others

Head of Seoul Central Government

Seoul High Court Decision 85Gu1270 decided Feb. 10, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The vicarious execution stipulated by the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is a system in which the administrative agency concerned performs the act of vicarious execution directly under the Act or under the order of the administrative agency under the law, and where the person liable to perform the act of vicarious execution fails to perform the act by himself or on behalf of the third party, and collects the expenses from the person liable to perform it. In the vicarious execution, if the person liable to perform it by himself fails to perform it by himself, the contents and scope of the act of vicarious execution must be specified in detail, and any restriction lacking specific specification such as this is illegal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu257, Sept. 10, 1985; 85Nu314, Dec. 24, 1985).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, first of all, rejected the defendant's assertion that the defendant had no interest in claiming cancellation of the disposition of this case since it was merely 159.54 square meters, which is part of 583.675 square meters of the total area subject to the order of removal, among the buildings of this case, which the defendant had completed the vicarious removal of this case, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the execution of removal price has yet to be completed. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been extended more than 410.715 square meters of the permitted area among the construction with permission of extension of 306.85 square meters of the existing building (the actual extension area is 717.57 square meters of the building), and the defendant ordered removal of the part equivalent to 583.675 square meters of the total area of the building of this case, and it cannot be deemed that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as well as the part of the order of removal of the above 2016 square meters of the building of this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee-hee (Presiding Justice)