Whether the disposition is appropriate without specifying the details of the duty of performance;

In guiding the vicarious execution under Article 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, in case where a person liable to perform the vicarious execution fails to perform by himself, the administrative agency shall specify the contents of the act of vicarious execution in detail, and any disposition not specifying the contents of the obligation to perform by himself is unlawful.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 84F1 Decided August 28, 1984

Attorney Song Young-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Office Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 84Gu250 delivered on March 13, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

In a case where a person liable to perform an act of vicarious execution, which is directly ordered by an Act or under an order issued by an administrative agency pursuant to an Act, fails to perform by the person liable to perform the act of vicarious execution, the administrative agency concerned either directly or instead has a third party perform the act and collects the expenses therefor from the person liable to perform the act. Thus, in a case where the person liable to perform the vicarious execution is ordered by an administrative agency pursuant to Article 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, the administrative agency shall specify the contents of the act of vicarious execution in a case where the person liable to perform the act fails

According to the facts established by the court below and the records, the contents of extension performed by the plaintiff without legitimate permission are limited to enhancing 3.3 meters of the roof of the existing building and installing 179 square meters of stairs-type 3 stories inside the building. The defendant, when disposing of the removal substitute removal construction of this case, ordered removal of the extended building within 10 days since the building, the plaintiff, as the obligor, has been constructed in violation of Article 5 of the Building Act, and it is evident that the building that you use continuously without specifying the part or area of the extended building to be removed by himself, has been constructed, and if not, it is obvious that the plaintiff would be allowed to perform vicarious execution. Therefore, the above disposition by the defendant is unlawful because the contents of the act by the plaintiff are not specified. The judgment below is just and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the specification of administrative disposition, as argued in the lawsuit.

The lower court held that the Defendant’s disposition of dismissal against removal was unlawful on the ground that the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty of removal could not be deemed to seriously undermine the public interest. However, this is attributable to the judgment under the assumption that the content of the disposition against removal against removal was specified. As seen above, so long as it was justifiable to determine that the disposition against the Plaintiff was unlawful on the ground that the content of the disposition against removal is not specified, the lower court did not have any reason to affect the conclusion of the lower judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit, even if there was a misapprehension

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju