Even if property tax is imposed on the extended part, the case holding that the removal and transfer disposition of the extended part against the purchaser is legitimate, knowing that the original owner had extended a multi-story building into a third-story building without permission for alteration of the transport business plan only after obtaining permission for extension.

The fact that the transport company Gap, the former owner of the instant single-story building, obtained authorization to revise the transport business plan so that it can extend the 20th and the 3th floor above the building does not exempt from the obligation to obtain permission to obtain lawful extension permission under the Building Act. Thus, if the building part of the above 203th floor was purchased through a mistake that the plaintiff knew that it was the above legal building and would be at a disadvantage caused thereby, even though the above extension was rejected, the disposition of this case is legitimate since the defendant, the competent authority, even though he knew of the above extension, imposed property tax on the building while leaving the building without removing the above unauthorized building for a considerable period of time, or even if the above unauthorized building has a structure, solid, solid, and considerable property value, protecting only the plaintiff's personal small interest, which may endanger the smooth performance of the construction administration at the time of the construction permission and completion inspection, and thus, avoiding the authority of the authority controlling the illegal building, and thus, the removal or prevention of the above removal should be more likely to undermine the public interest.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 5 of the Building Act

New Francs

Egye Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 89Gu243 delivered on December 5, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

원심판결 이유에 의하면, 원심은 그 판시와 같은 사실관계를 인정한 다음 피고가 소외 주식회사 이리여객에서 이 사건 단층건물 위에 2, 3층 건물을 증축할 수 있도록 운송사업계획변경 인가를 하여 주었다고 하더라도 그것만으로는 위 회사가 건축법에 따른 적법한 증축허가를 받아야 할 의무가 면제되는 것은 아니라고 할 것이므로 위 2, 3층 건물부분이 무허가로 증축된 데 대한 제1차적인 책임은 증축허가신청이 반려되었음에도 불구하고 그 증축공사를 강행한 위 회사에게 있다고 보아야 할 것이고, 원고도 위 2, 3층 건물부분이 위법건축물임을 잘 알고서 그로 인한 불이익이 있더라도 이를 감수할 각오로 이를 매수한 것임이 분명하다고 보아야 할 것이므로, 비록 원고주장과 같이 피고가 위 무허가건물이 증축된 사실을 알고도 상당한 기간 이를 철거시키지 않고 방치하면서 증축된 건물부분에 대한 재산세를 부과하였다거나 위 무허가건물이 그 구조가 견고하고 모양이 수려하며 상당한 재산적 가치를 가지고 있다는 등의 사정이 있다고 하여도 그와 같은 사정만으로 위와 같이 건축허가 없이 무단증축된 넓은 면적의 건물을 방치한다는 것은 원고의 개인적인 작은 이익만을 보호하는 것이 되어 불법건축물을 단속하는 당국의 권능을 무력화하여 건축행정의 원활한 수행을 위태롭게 하고 건축허가 및 준공검사시에 소방시설, 주차시설 기타 건축법이나 도시계힉법 소정의 제한구정을 회피하는 것을 사전예방하여야 한다는 더 큰 공익을 오히려 해칠 우려가 있는 경우에 해당한다 하여 피고의 이 사건 철거계고처분은 적법하다 고 판단하고 있는바, 기록에 의하여 살펴보면 원심의 위와 같은 사실인정과 판단은 정당하다고 수긍이 가고 거기에 소론과 같은 심리미진과 채증법칙위반으로 인한 사실오인이나 행정대집행계고처분의 여건에 관한 법리를 오해한 위법이 없으므로 논지는 이유없다.

The plaintiff guaranteed that the above company should train the building parts of the above 20th and third floors, which are illegal buildings, when the government policies to train the above company without permission, and the plaintiff also purchased the illegal buildings of this case from the above company with the belief of the above guarantee. In addition, the urban planning decision and public notice on the 264th of the peace Dong-dong at Emri-si where the illegal buildings of this case are located was already invalidated, and since the area where the illegal buildings are located is not a railroad facility green area, the illegal buildings of this case constitutes a building subject to relief by the construction guidelines issued by the construction division around September 198, and thus the disposition of the instant appeal on the illegal buildings of this case is legitimate. However, the judgment of the court below is not just against the new ground that was not asserted by the court below, and it cannot be accepted.

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 Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)