(a) the effect of the vicarious execution, guidance and disposition not specified in the object;

(b) A case where it is deemed that the term “reasonable” under the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act does not fall under the execution period

A. In the event that a number of buildings owned by the plaintiff are built on the 1,5,6,7,8,10,12 of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 7-1,5,6,7,8,10,12, it is illegal to indicate that the object is only a building on the same ground in the course of the disposition of laying down the building on some of the buildings.

B. The disposal of the factory structures on July 31, 1971 and the removal deadline set up until August 3 of the same year is illegal as the execution period under Article 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is not set.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Central Industrial Company

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

The defendant's disposition on July 31, 1971 against the plaintiff shall be revoked with respect to the above 7 ground buildings in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Mapo-gu.

The same shall apply to the order.

As of July 31, 1971, the fact that the Defendant ordered the Plaintiff to remove the Plaintiff’s building No. 7 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s building on the ground was an unauthorized building in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Mapo-gu, Seoul, by no later than August 3, 1971, and gave guidance to the Plaintiff to perform administrative vicarious execution is no dispute between the parties.

However, the plaintiff asserted that the building site Nos. 1,5,6,7,8,10,11, 12 is owned by the plaintiff and constructed with construction permission for ten years prior to the above ground, and the above buildings are fixed at the domestic oil drying facilities and other high-value machinery, which are the sanction and wood plant of the plaintiff company, so it is illegal because such large machinery and equipment permanently installed within three days, and it does not set a considerable period for payment as stipulated in Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and the defendant stated that the building subject to the appeal of this case is an unauthorized building No. 7 of the same building on the final plan, which is marked No. 7 of the same building, but this is a comprehensive display of the entire building on the final and conclusive road adjoining 7 of the same Dong, which is in conflict with each other, since the building subject to the appeal of this case is a building with the same 7th and 14th and 50-14th and 16th and 14th and 16th of the same Dong.

In light of the whole purport of the argument in each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 4, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Gap evidence Nos. 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 7,5,67,8,10,12 of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 7 No. 1,5,67,8, 10, and 12, it can be recognized that there are several buildings, such as the annexed warehouse, building room, power generation room, etc.

In addition, it is illegal that the period of removal was determined by July 31, 1971 when it was disposed of as of July 31, 1971, and the period was determined by August 3 of that year in order to improve the construction of factory buildings such as this, since the implementation period of "reasonable" under Article 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act was not set.

Therefore, the disposition of this case is illegal in the above point without judging the remainder of the disposition. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking its revocation is justified, and the lawsuit cost is assessed against the losing defendant.

Judges Sick-su (Presiding Judge)

Judge Kim Jong-soo is unable to affix a written seal by transfer.