Where an administrative litigation is filed to seek revocation on the ground that the disposition was in violation of Article 42 of the Building Act, an administrative litigation is filed, without examining and determining as to whether Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act has been ordered prior to the disposition of the guidance and determination as to whether there was an order of the guidance and determination.

The court's decision in case of seeking the cancellation of the disposition of succession on the ground of the violation of Article 42 of the Building Act.

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

Plaintiff

The head of Jongno-gu

Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu89 delivered on August 31, 1965

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s Attorney

In this case, the issue of whether the requirements under Article 42 of the Building Act are met is whether the order to remove the building in question is not the requirement of the order, but the administrative agency under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act before the order is issued, that is, whether the order to remove the building in question is appropriate, and it is interpreted as the whole purport of pleadings that the above order does not meet the requirements under Article 42 of the Building Act. In this case, the court below shall exercise the right to request tin and examine whether the order has been issued before the order to remove the building in question, and if there is no order to remove the building in question, it shall not be deemed legitimate due to the defect of the requirements under Article 42 of the Building Act. If the order to remove the building in question is cancelled, it is hard to say that there is an error of law in the incomplete hearing in the original judgment, and in light of evidence evidence No. 5 of the original judgment and evidence No. 42 of the above order to remove the building in question at the time of the above order to remove the building in question.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)