The adequacy of the measures not specifying the part by ordering the removal of the part of the building;

In order to carry out the vicarious execution, a reasonable period of time must be ordered by the obligor to carry out the vicarious execution, and the purport that the vicarious execution shall be carried out in advance if the obligor fails to perform it by the time limit for the performance thereof. Therefore, it is necessary to specify the contents of the performance obligation so that the contents of the performance obligation can be determined, and therefore, it is not clear which part of the building should be removed, and thus, a disposition that does not specify certain parts of the vicarious execution is illegal.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu20 Delivered on July 26, 1983

Attorney Kim Won-won, Counsel for the special appellant-appellant

The head of Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Order 84Nu105 dated July 11, 1984

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

I examine the first ground for special appeal.

In a case where a person liable to perform an act of vicarious execution, which is directly ordered by an Act or under an order issued by an administrative agency under any Act, and which is capable of performing the act on behalf of another person, fails to do so, if it is difficult to secure the implementation by other means, and it is extremely detrimental to the public interest to neglect the nonperformance, the administrative agency concerned shall refer to the act to be done by the person liable to perform the act by itself or to collect the expenses from the person liable to perform the said act by having a third person, or to the third person, and if the person liable to perform the vicarious execution intends to do it by a reasonable time limit, the administrative agency shall order him to perform it by itself, and if the person liable to perform it by the said time limit is not performing it by the said time limit, the agency shall give prior

However, according to the records of the case, the defendant's order to remove the building of this case, which is the 11.44 square meters from the 11.44 square meters from the 2nd and 127.10 square meters from the 2nd and 2nd and the 3nd and 115.6 square meters from the 115.66 square meters from the 2nd and 3rd and the 115.6 square meters from the 3rd and the 3rd and the 115.6 square meters from the 3nd and the 65.76 square meters from the 3rd and the 65.7th and upper floors from the 3rd and upper floors (the 11.4th and 11.4th and 3rd and upper 127.10 square meters from the 2nd and it is clear that the removal of part of the building of this case is not clear, and thus, the decision of the court below which did not dismiss the application of this case's vicarious execution.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)