logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.11.12 2013두15378
이행강제금부과처분취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion on the applicable statutes and construction timing

A. According to the Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381, May 31, 1991; hereinafter “former Building Act”) which was wholly amended by Act No. 4381, Jun. 1, 1992, which was enforced since June 1, 1992 (hereinafter “former Building Act”), a fine for negligence may be imposed on a person who violated a corrective order concerning a building in violation of the Building Act or an order or disposition under the Building Act (hereinafter “violationed building”). However, a fine for negligence was imposed pursuant to Article 83 of the amended Building Act.

However, Article 6 of the Addenda to the amended Building Act provides that the disposal of a building in violation of the former Building Act prior to the enforcement of the amended Building Act shall be subject to the previous provisions, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 83, prior to the enforcement of the amended Building Act.

However, while the Building Act amended by Act No. 8974 of March 21, 2008 (hereinafter “former Building Act”) continues to have the enforcement fine system against the violator of the corrective order, there was no transitional provision on the existing building.

The enforcement fine system aims to promote public welfare by continuously imposing the administrative order until implementation of the corrective order in order to ensure the effectiveness of the administrative order if the owner, etc. fails to comply with the order even though the administrative agency ordered corrective measures in order to prevent the neglect of the violated building.

(see Supreme Court Order 2002Ma1022, Aug. 16, 2002). In addition, even if the owner, etc. of a building in violation is not the violator, the administrative agency may issue a corrective order to him/her, and even if Article 6 of the Addenda to the Building Act, which was amended by the whole amendment of the Building Act, becomes null and void, the administrative agency may issue a corrective order under the Building Act at the time of the violation. Thus

arrow