Whether a "reasonable implementation period" under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act may be deemed to be set in the event that the order of vicarious execution as of November 30, 1991 was served on the person liable for vicarious execution on the 28th of the same month (negative)

Although the period for the implementation of removal of retaining walls is specified in a map issued by an administrative agency as of November 25, 191 as of November 30, 1991, if it was served on the person responsible for vicarious execution on the 28th of the same month, it cannot be deemed that the said map meets the requirements for lawful vicarious administrative execution.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Suwon-si Head of Suwon-si, Attorney Kim Tae-Gyeong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu26746 delivered on June 17, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the evidence established by the court below based on the records, the court below is justified in the measures that the height of the retaining wall of this case established by the plaintiff is 1.8 meters, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit.

In addition, Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act provides that a considerable period of implementation shall be set and guidance as a requirement for vicarious execution. The judgment of the court below is just and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as long as the period of implementation of removal in the instant order issued by the defendant as of November 25, 191 is specified as of November 30 of the same month, but if the above order was served on the plaintiff on the 28th of the same month, it shall not be deemed that a reasonable period of implementation has been set, and there is no evidence to deem that there was a special reason for not setting a reasonable period of implementation as provided in Article 53-3 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191) and there is no evidence to deem that there was a special reason for not setting a period of implementation as provided in the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191).

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.