Details and scope of the act of vicarious execution;

The contents of the order shall be able to specify the contents and scope of the act of vicarious execution in a case where the person liable fails to perform it by himself, but the contents and scope of the act shall not be specified only by the order of vicarious execution, but it shall not be specified by considering the documents or other circumstances delivered after the order of vicarious execution.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu20 Decided July 26, 1983 85Nu314 Decided December 24, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Jung-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu202 delivered on August 27, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to the First Ground:

The content and scope of the order shall be specified in the case where the obligor fails to perform it by himself, but the contents and scope of the order shall not be specified only by the order of the vicarious execution, but it shall not be specified by considering the documents or other circumstances delivered after the order of the vicarious execution (see Supreme Court Decision 85Nu314 delivered on December 24, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 83Nu20 delivered on July 26, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held, based on the evidence, that the parcel number of the building subject to removal is the immediate next lot number, and there is a little difference between the removal area and the part to be removed, and therefore, it is apparent that the part to be removed is apparent. Since the error is merely a clerical error and it is merely a simple clerical error, it can be said that the contents and scope of the act of vicarious execution in this case can be specified specifically if it is found that the defendant specified the building subject to removal in conformity with the facts and confirmed the fact that the corrective notice was given. Thus, there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the above measures by the court below.

With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below confirmed the fact that the plaintiff constructed an unauthorized building of this case at the same time, even though he was subject to removal by the authorities and criminal punishment, and held that the above unauthorized building might be detrimental to the public interest even in order to prevent in advance the avoidance of regulation under the Building Act for the facilitation of traffic flow, harmony with neighboring buildings, even in order to prevent in advance, the above unauthorized building may be left alone, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as alleged.

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

Justices Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice)