Public Interest and Removal of Buildings

In the event that an unauthorized building is likely to cause harm to the public interest by leaving the building alone, it may be ordered to be removed pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the Building Act.

Article 42 of the Building Act, Article 5 of the School Health Act, Article 2 and Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff

Kim Jong-gun

The defendant dismissed the plaintiff's lawsuit demanding that the plaintiff grant a building permit for five bbebbes, 223 square meters in 223 square meters in 223 Gashesa, Gashesa, Gashes, Kim Jong-gun, Kim Jong-dong (number omitted) on the land.

The administrative order issued by the defendant against the plaintiff as of July 14, 1973 is dismissed as the plaintiff's claim that the administrative order is revoked.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The administrative order issued by the Defendant against the Plaintiff as of July 14, 1973 was revoked, and the Defendant received an application for a building permit for five Hobbebebbes, the Agushesa, the sap of which was issued by the Plaintiff on the land of Kim Jong-gun, Kim Jong-gun, Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong, which was submitted by the Plaintiff, and at the same time, received an application for a building permit for fivebbes, the building permit for this. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant.

First of all, we examine the plaintiff's claim seeking building permit.

The plaintiff's attorney is running the government grain mill business for more than 40 years, and he received an order to improve the facilities for processing rice for unification from the authority, and received 12 million won as stated in the purport of the claim on November 11, 1972, which was completed on January 3, 1973. The above factory building is equipped with all facilities for preventing pollution, and criminal punishment has been terminated due to construction without permission. As such, the defendant returns the above building regardless of the application for the building permit even if it is necessary to grant the building permit for the above factory building, and thus, he/she received the application for the building permit and seeks the building permit.

Therefore, first of all, in relation to the legitimacy of the lawsuit in this case, under the current administrative litigation system, administrative litigation that seeks a performance judgment such as ordering an administrative agency to take a certain disposition is not permissible. Thus, the plaintiff's main lawsuit seeking a performance judgment against the defendant is a lawsuit seeking a performance judgment, and the plaintiff's main lawsuit seeking a performance decision against the defendant is an improper lawsuit lacking in the requirements for the lawsuit, and the decision on the merits is dismissed without any necessity.

The following decisions are examined as to the cancellation request for the disposition of the order.

The defendant ordered the plaintiff to voluntarily remove the factory buildings stated in the purport of the claim on July 12, 1973, within 20 days from the date of receipt of the written complaint against the plaintiff. The fact that the written complaint was served on the defendant around July 14, 1973, and that the order was issued prior to the issuance of the above order, and the fact that the above building was an unauthorized building is no dispute between the parties.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff's representative is entitled to permit after the completion of criminal punishment if it satisfies the standards of the related Acts and subordinate statutes as well as to permit after the completion of construction of the building without permission, even though it is possible to permit after the completion of the construction of the building without permission, and the defendant's order for the removal of the building for the sole reason that it is an unauthorized building without permission. The above order for the removal of the building is legitimate, and the defendant's above order for the removal of the building without permission for the above 3th anniversary of the above order for the improvement of the facility of the government authorities. The above order for the removal of the building without permission for the above 3th anniversary of the above order for the removal of the building without permission for the establishment of the 1st place of the 3th place of the building without permission for the construction of the 1st place of the 3th place of the 7th place of the 7th place of the 7th place of the 5th place of the building. The above order for the removal of the 1st place of the 7th place of the building.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition in this case is dismissed properly, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)