(a) Whether the removal part is specified where only "the extension of second floor of the front coffee shop" is written on the platform;

B. Criteria for determining whether the failure to perform the duty of removal is prejudicial to the public interest among the requirements for the disposition of transit

A. The indication of the part of the building to be removed on the platform can be seen as specifying the part of the building to be removed only by stating "the extension of the second floor of the front coffee shop".

B. As long as the portion of the building extended for coffee stores connected to the tourist hotel is an unauthorized illegal building, whether it seriously undermines public interest should be determined by taking into account not only the surrounding situation and urban landscape after the completion of the extension, but also the prevention of prior prevention of avoidance of the restrictive provisions under the Building Act, such as fire-fighting systems at the time of smooth performance of construction administration and completion inspection, pollution prevention facilities, and other restrictions stipulated under the Building Act.

(a) Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act; Article 2 of the same Act; Article 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act;

(a) Supreme Court Decision 80Nu351 Decided October 14, 1980; Supreme Court Decision 80Nu252 Decided September 24, 1980

Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

The head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu276 delivered on December 28, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the part of the building to be removed was specified only by the defendant's expression "the extension of 2nd floor of the front coffee shop," based on the whole evidences of the city in this case. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and it cannot be viewed that there was an unlawful act of not specifying the part of the building to be removed, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be adopted.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

The court below held that the part of the extended building of this case is constructed for coffee, which is connected to the tourist hotel that should focus on the safety of the general public, and thus, it should be deemed that the failure of the plaintiff's removal obligation is extremely detrimental to the public interest because, if the building was completed simply after the completion of the building, and whether the failure of the removal obligation is seriously detrimental to the public interest by simply taking into account the surrounding condition or the urban landscape, etc., the authority's competence to regulate the illegal building would be threatened with the smooth performance of the construction administration, and there is a concern for preventing such unlawful building from being avoided the restriction provisions under the Building Act in advance at the time of the completion of the construction construction inspection. Thus, such unlawful building is naturally obligated to remove it, and the part of the extended building of this case is constructed for coffee, which is constructed for the public entertainment shop, which is connected to the tourist hotel that is connected to the general public. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and it cannot be discussed that there is any error like the theory.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)