The requirements for appeal and administrative vicarious execution against the disposition of succession;

Since the act of guidance for vicarious execution is included in the disposition prescribed by this Act, it is subject to appeal litigation even if it is illegal in the guidance itself.

Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff

Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor

Seoul High Court Decision 65Gu58 delivered on December 28, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by Defendant’s Attorney

In a case where it is difficult to secure performance by other means, and it is deemed that leaving the failure to perform it is extremely detrimental to the public interest, the failure to perform it is a quasi-legal administrative act that the administrative agency determines the period for performance and notifies the intention to perform it in a case where the administrative agency fails to perform it within the said period from its superior position, and it is a necessary premise procedure that legitimate the issuance of a warrant and the execution of vicarious execution, which is part of a series of procedures for vicarious execution, does not impose any new obligation above the existing obligation by the order actually, but it does not impose any new obligation above the existing obligation by the order. Since there is a guidance, the other party has a legal interest in demanding the cancellation of the vicarious execution at the stage of the proceeding, and the other party shall be subject to appeal litigation only in the case where there is an error in the guidance and disposition itself, since it is included in the administrative disposition under the Administrative Litigation Act. This can not be adopted as the attitude that the principal source has taken from the previous one.

As to the ground of appeal No. 2.3

The judgment of the court below is not a matter of fact but a matter of fact that the plaintiff's construction work of the ratio corresponding to 86.8% of the building area was completed, and the defendant violated the provisions of Article 39 of the Building Act concerning the ratio of building area and ordered correction or removal of the part in violation. The judgment of the court below is a violation of the building area ratio of the building area in the original judgment. The judgment of the court below is interpreted as including the decision of the court below that construction work has been expanded without permission. The judgment of the court below is erroneous as to the excess of the building ratio, such as family litigation theory, and there were errors in the judgment of the court below as to the violation of the standard at the time of mooring disposition in determining the legitimacy of the disposition, even though the decision of the court below was erroneous as to the above decision, and the vicarious removal of the original case by the administrative agency is difficult to secure the performance by other means and it is extremely detrimental to the public interest, and the burden of proof as to the fulfillment of these requirements should be determined at the time of the court below's decision, and it cannot be determined as to be justified.

As to ground of appeal No. 4

Since the appeal under the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act is merely a phase of the procedure of administrative vicarious execution, it can not be a subject of a prior disposition, and even if there is a failure to comply with the requirements under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act after a prior disposition, it is obvious that the prior disposition cannot be deemed legitimate in light of the above provisions.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, according to Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)