The validity of the request for cancellation of the disposition, which was made after the removal was completed through the notice procedure by the warrant of disposition and vicarious execution.

There is no benefit in the protection of rights to seek the cancellation of the measure of succession when the vicarious execution is completed.

Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act and Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Nu25 Decided May 31, 1965

-Influenction

Egye Market

Gwangju High Court Decision 67Gu2 delivered on July 5, 1967

We reverse the original judgment.

This case shall be dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

With respect to the legal requirements of this case ex officio, it is reasonable to judge's order under Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and to request compensation for damages or restoration to the original state on the ground of illegality after the vicarious execution has been completed as a fact act with the guidance under Article 3 of the same Act and the notification procedure by a warrant for vicarious execution, even though the cancellation of the disposition is not a benefit of protection of rights. (See Supreme Court Decision 65Nu25 delivered on May 31, 1965) In light of the records, the defendant's main claim for this case is that the plaintiff is not exempted from the legal reasoning of the decision of the court below as to the removal of the lawsuit by the plaintiff's order of removal from the original decision of 1967, the defendant's order of removal from the original decision of 200,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000.7,000.

Supreme Court Judge Kimchim (Presiding Judge)