The case holding that the order of removal of a building is included in the Gyeyang

Even if the order of removal is included in the letter of order for voluntary removal and the order of removal under Article 42 of the Building Act is independent, if it can be deemed that the order of removal was given to the voluntary removal within a certain period of time, if the order of removal is not made within the fixed period of time, the order of removal and the order of removal under the Article 42 of the Building Act is independent.

Article 42 of the Building Act, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 67Da2380 Decided March 26, 1968

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu783 delivered on March 8, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Gap evidence No. 3 and party pleadings, since the defendant ordered the plaintiff and the non-party to voluntarily remove the building on October 12, 1976, which was constructed in violation of Article 5 of the Building Act, within 4 days from the date of delivery of the order to voluntarily remove the building, and if the order is not removed within the prescribed period, the court below recognized that the order to remove the building was sent to the plaintiff and the non-party under Article 42 (1) of the Building Act, and it is not reasonable to conclude that the order to remove the building was delivered to the plaintiff and the non-party on October 5, 1976, and it is not reasonable to conclude that the order to remove the building was lawful without permission for 6 days from the date of delivery of the building on which the order was delivered, and it is also reasonable to conclude that the order to remove the building without permission for 7 days from the date of issuance of the order to remove the building within the prescribed period.

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 on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)