[1] Whether the procedure is terminated where a person subject to a charge for compelling compliance under the former Building Act dies during the continuance of the charge for compelling compliance (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a person on whom a charge for compelling performance was imposed under the former Building Act dies before the appellate court rendered a decision after the first instance court rendered a charge for compelling performance, the legality of reappeal filed under the name of the deceased (=additional law)

[1] The enforcement fine under the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005) is a type of indirect compulsory performance imposed on the owner of a building who has failed to comply with the corrective order within the corrective period after receiving the corrective order for the violation of the former Building Act. Since the obligation to pay the enforcement fine is a kind of continuous and continuous obligation which cannot be succeeded to by the heir and others, the disposition or decision that imposes the enforcement fine on the deceased is null and void as it is a disposition or decision to impose the enforcement fine on the deceased person, and the procedure of trial under the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act is terminated by the objection of the person on whom the enforcement fine was imposed, if the

[2] In a case where a person on whom a charge for compelling execution was imposed under the former Building Act dies before the appellate court rendered a decision after the first instance court rendered a charge for compelling execution, the appellate court’s decision shall be null and void as a matter of course, and the reappeal filed under the name of the deceased is unlawful as it has defects

[1] Articles 69, 82(4), and 83(2) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005), Article 248 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act / [2] Article 83 (see current Article 69-2) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005), Article 248 of the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act, Articles 413, 442, and 443(2) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 2002Ma1022 dated August 16, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2277)

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 2004Ra40 dated April 14, 2006

The reappeal of this case is dismissed.

Judgment ex officio is made.

1. The enforcement fine under the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 7696 of Nov. 8, 2005) is a type of indirect compulsory performance imposed on the owner of a building who has failed to comply with the pertinent corrective order within the corrective period after receiving the corrective order for the violation under the former Building Act (see Supreme Court Order 2002Ma1022, Aug. 16, 2002). Since the obligation to pay the enforcement fine is a kind of continuous and continuous nature that cannot be succeeded to the heir or other person, the disposition or decision of imposing the enforcement fine shall be null and void, and if the person who has already died after the trial procedure under the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act was initiated by the person on whom the enforcement fine was imposed, the case itself shall lose the purpose and the procedure shall be terminated.

2. However, according to the records, the first instance court decided on December 16, 2003 that the re-appellant shall be punished by a non-performance penalty of KRW 10 million, and the court below changed the first instance court's decision on April 14, 2006 and decided that the re-appellant shall be punished by a non-performance penalty of KRW 7 million ("non-performance penalty" in the order of the court below and the reasons for the decision). However, the re-appellant is already dead on August 21, 2004, before the first instance court's decision was rendered after the first instance court's decision, and the second appeal of this case filed in the name of the deceased re-appellant is null and void as it is impossible to correct.

3. Therefore, we dismiss the reappeal of this case. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)