(a) The case holding that even if the fine view of the building was created due to the extension without permission and the cost of removing the said extension requires a large amount, it constitutes a requirement to take measures to remove, replace and dismiss the building;

(b) The case holding that a considerable period of time under Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act has been granted in light of the fact that even if a disposition of vicarious execution, to remove an illegal building was served prior to the removal of the building, the construction suspension and voluntary removal order was given prior to the removal of the building and the subsequent postponement of the removal deadline was extended;

C. In issuing an order to remove a building in violation of the Building Act and taking a guidance for vicarious execution thereof, whether the act to be performed by the person liable for performance, the contents and scope of the act to be performed by vicarious execution in the event of nonperformance of the said obligation must be specified by a written order

(d) The case holding that the object to be removed was specified in the form of a vicarious execution order in full view of the documents pertaining to the same disposition delivered by the competent administrative agency to the person responsible for vicarious execution several times prior to the disposition, although the object to be removed was stated only as "Yansan-gu ( Address omitted) 00 ○○"

A. The case holding that even if the fine view of the building caused by the unauthorized extension section and the cost of removing the said extension section is much required, if the above unauthorized extension section is left unattended, it constitutes a requirement to take measures to remove the building on the behalf of the government for removal of the building on the ground that there is a concern to seriously harm the public interest to prevent in advance the smooth performance of the building administration from avoiding the authorized extension section and to ensure the economic and efficient use of the land within the urban planning zone, and to prevent in advance the authority controlling it from avoiding the authorized extension section.

B. The case holding that even if the person liable for vicarious execution was served on the 17th of the same month with the order to voluntarily remove the building, it cannot be deemed that it does not constitute a case where the considerable period for payment under Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act has not been set, and that the competent authority granted a considerable period for payment under the above Article for voluntary removal, on the ground that the person liable for vicarious execution did not voluntarily remove the building by not later than April 19, 190, in view of the fact that the person liable for vicarious execution was served on the 19th of the same month with the order to voluntarily remove the building, and that the person liable for vicarious execution received the order to voluntarily remove the building from October 6, 1988 where the said construction was carried out for extension of permission to the extent that it did not have been served on the said order

(c) In issuing an order to remove a building in violation of the Building Act, and taking a guidance for vicarious execution to be performed by the obligor upon the nonperformance of the obligation, the acts to be performed by the obligor, and the contents and scope of the act to be performed by the vicarious execution upon the nonperformance of the obligation, are not necessarily specified by a written order for vicarious execution, but are sufficient if it can be specified by taking into account the documents delivered before

(d) The case holding that the object to be removed was specified as the object to be removed by the vicarious execution order, on the ground that in full view of the documents on the same disposition of the same content delivered to the person responsible for vicarious execution several times before the disposition was issued, the object to be removed was easily identified as the 3rd floor of the above building and the srab 63.4 square meters wide, extended without permission, following the 32.56 square meters away from the existing 3rd floor of the above building and the srab 63.4 square meters wide.

(a) B.D. Article 42(a) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991) (D. Article 2(b) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 89Nu824 delivered on September 26, 1989 (Gong1989,1595) 90Nu2871 delivered on August 10, 1990 (Gong1990,1969) 90Nu9643 delivered on March 8, 1991 (Gong1188), Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4543 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong190,561) 90Nu1070 delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong191,1192)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu6509 delivered on April 9, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on the evidences, that the height of the building of this case was high due to the Plaintiff's unauthorized extension of the building of this case, and that the building area ratio exceeded the legal limit due to the increase of 289.9% of the building area ratio, and even if the fine for the above unauthorized extension area and the cost of removal of the above unauthorized extension area were spent much, if the above unauthorized extension area is neglected, the authority controlling the authority's failure to neglect the above unauthorized extension area would cause a threat of smooth execution of the building administration and avoid the building regulations under the Building Act, thereby impairing the economic and efficient use of the land within the urban planning zone, and thereby seriously impairing the public interest of promoting the smooth execution of the building. In light of the records, the court below's evidence preparation and its determination on the above fact finding and determination are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, the requirements for vicarious execution under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act and the burden of proof.

2. On the second ground for appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the plaintiff was served on April 19, 190 on the 17th of the same month the order for the suspension of construction and the order for voluntary removal of the building of this case for the vicarious removal of the building of this case, if the plaintiff did not voluntarily remove the building of this case, considering that the plaintiff was ordered three times from October 6, 1988 when the construction was performed for the above unauthorized extension construction to the date when the above order for voluntary removal was served, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a case where the considerable period for payment under Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act has not been set. Further, the court below accepted the plaintiff's request for the postponement of voluntary removal by May 15, 190 and decided that the defendant granted a considerable period for payment under the above Article for the voluntary removal to the plaintiff. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the theory, and there is no ground for appeal.

B. The argument that the object of the vicarious execution in this case is not specified is not only the reason alleged in the court below but also the reason that the object of the removal in this case is not specified, but also the order to remove the building in violation of the Building Act, and the contents and scope of the act to be performed by the obligor in the event of the failure to perform the order, and the contents and scope of the act to be performed by the obligor in the event of the failure to perform the order are not always specified by the order of vicarious execution, but it is sufficient to specify it by considering the documents delivered before and after the disposition and other circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Nu314, Dec. 24, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4543, Jan. 25, 190; Supreme Court Decision 89Nu4543, Jan. 25, 199). However, the report of the vicarious execution in this case (No. 7) stated that the object of the removal in this case is stated as the object of the removal without permission of the previous 3264 meters.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)