(a) In issuing an order to remove a building in violation of the Building Act and guiding its vicarious execution, any act to be performed by the obligor, and the details and scope of the act to be performed by vicarious execution upon nonperformance of such obligation;

(b) The case holding that the contents and scope of the act of vicarious execution are specifically specified in light of the fact that the administrative agency stated that the object of voluntary removal and vicarious execution is "violations of a building being extended on the ground of 203-13,14,15, 203-13, Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, and that it pointed out the previous violation and ordered the correction thereof;

A. Under Article 42(1) of the Building Act and Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, when an administrative agency orders the removal of a building in violation of the Building Act and the vicarious execution upon nonperformance of such order, the act 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 should be specified in detail. However, the specific contents and scope of the act to be performed are not necessarily limited by the order of removal or the order of vicarious execution, but by comparing and comparing the indication of the actual location, structure, reputation, permitted relation, etc. of the building and the scope of the obligation of the vicarious execution can be determined by whether the person liable for the vicarious execution

(b) The case holding that it cannot be said that the content and scope of the act of vicarious execution is not specified on the ground that the administrative agency stated that the object of voluntary removal and vicarious execution is "violation of a building being extended on the ground of 203-13,14,15, Seoul Mapo-gu, Seoul, which is a structure extending on the ground of 203-13,00,000, pointed out the previous violation and ordered correction thereof, etc.

Article 42 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 1991); Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Nu631 delivered on November 12, 1985 (Gong1986,65) 89Nu4543 delivered on January 25, 1990 (Gong190,561) 90Nu1070 Delivered on March 12, 1991 (Gong191,192)

[Judgment of the court below]

The head of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 90Gu11242 delivered on April 16, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

When an administrative agency issues an order to remove a building in violation of the Building Act and Articles 2 and 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and imposes an order to remove the building in violation of the Building Act, the administrative agency shall specify the act to be performed by the obligor and the contents and scope of the act to be performed by vicarious execution in the event of nonperformance of the obligation, but the specific contents and scope of the act to be performed by the obligor shall not necessarily be determined by a removal order or a written order for vicarious execution, but it shall be determined by comparison with the indication of the location, structure, reputation, permission relation, etc. of the actual building and whether the person liable for vicarious execution can be aware of the scope of the obligation to perform by the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu631, Nov. 12, 1985; 85Nu314, Dec. 14, 198; 89Nu4543, Jan. 25, 190; 190Nu70, Mar. 12, 1900

Therefore, as determined by the court below, on February 12, 1990, the defendant issued the corrective order by indicating the violation against the plaintiff as "the removal of the second floor from the second floor, the additional installation of outside stairs and the installation of outside warehouse without permission from the underground to the fourth floor, the installation of columns in the fifth floor mutatis mutandis in the fifth floor, and the 6th floor rooftop." The corrective order for the above violation again was issued on May 3 of the same year, and the corrective order was issued on the five floors expansion without permission from May 16 of the same year, and the object of voluntary removal and vicarious execution was "the violation of the building being extended on the 13,14,15th ground in the Seoul Mapo-gu 203-13, 203-13, 14, and 15 of the same year." Meanwhile, if non-party 1, who is the supervisor of the extended construction of this case, did not know the contents and scope of the above corrective order as to the plaintiff's vicarious execution.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)