A. In a case where the first order of removal and the second order of removal are not complied with and thus the second order of removal is sent again, whether dispatch is an administrative disposition (negative)

(b) The case holding that the disposition of mooring the removal and enforcement of an unauthorized building within the residential area or commercial area is lawful;

A. In a case where the Mayor orders the plaintiffs, the owner of an unauthorized building, to remove the building by a certain period of time, and notifies the plaintiffs that if they fail to comply with the order, they will send the second order to the second order and urge the voluntary removal by a certain period of time, and if they fail to comply with the order, the plaintiffs' obligation to remove the building under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act arises as the first order to remove the building and the second order to remove the building, and the second order to remove the building does not impose new removal obligation on the plaintiffs, but it is merely an administrative disposition on the notice of postponement of the period for vicarious execution.

B. Even if a temporary unauthorized building that substantially interferes with the urban aesthetic view or surrounding environment within a residential area or commercial area is the basis for the living of the snow view Plaintiffs, and even if the head of the group, upon the request for the maintenance of the surrounding environment of the market, grants considerable expenses to the Plaintiffs, leaving the above building alone alone is likely to seriously undermine the larger public interest, such as smooth implementation of architectural administration, economic and efficient use of land, etc., the order for removal and enforcement of the above building is lawful.

(a)Article 3(a) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 83Nu7661 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 1357) b. Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7661 delivered on January 29, 191 (Dong)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 25 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

[Defendant-Appellee] Kim Tae-Gyeong, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu6756 delivered on May 22, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the decision of the court below, on June 5, 1989, the defendant ordered the plaintiffs to remove the building of this case by the 24th of the same month pursuant to Articles 1 and 42 (1) of the Building Act and Articles 2 and 3 (1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and notified the plaintiffs to remove the building of this case by the 20th of the same month, and if the plaintiffs fail to perform this within the above time limit, the defendant urged again on June 28 of the same year to voluntarily remove the building of this case by July 6 of the same year and notified the plaintiffs that if they fail to perform this, it will perform vicarious execution. On June 5, 1989, the duty of removal under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act to the plaintiffs to remove the building of this case by the 2nd of the same month is not a new duty of removal by the 3rd of the same month, but a new duty of removal by the 3rd of the 2nd of the same year is not a new duty of removal by the plaintiffs.

In this view, the court below's decision that the disposition of June 28, 1989 was not an administrative disposition is justified and the arguments are groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The court below held that, while the surrounding areas of the building of this case are being developed as residential areas or commercial areas, the building of this case without permission substantially undermines the urban aesthetic view or surrounding environment in the form of temporary provisional building. As alleged by the plaintiff, etc., the plaintiffs, like the plaintiff et al., take the building of this case into the basis of living by blocking the building of this case with the consent of the owner of the building site of this case, and the building of this case is newly built at considerable costs upon the defendant's request for the maintenance of surrounding environment, if the building of this case is left unattended without permission, the authority of the authority regulating the illegal building of this case can be invalidated to ensure the smooth execution of the construction administration. The court below held that if the building of this case is left without permission and completion inspection under the Act, it might seriously undermine the public interest that would prevent in advance the acts of avoiding other restrictive provisions of the building, such as fire-fighting systems, parking facilities, traffic flow, harmony with neighboring buildings, etc., and promote the economic and efficient use of land within the urban planning zone.

According to the records, we affirm the judgment below's recognition and decision, and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)