Requirements for removal, substitute execution of the building extended in contravention of the Building Act and the Urban Planning Act.

Even if a building is extended in contravention of the Building Act or the Urban Planning Act and is obligated to be removed, it is allowed only when it is difficult to secure its implementation by other means and neglecting its failure is deemed to seriously undermine the public interest.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 82Gu294 delivered on April 19, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the relevant evidence cited by the judgment below based on the records, we affirm the judgment below's finding of facts as to the process and result of the construction of the second floor of the housing of this case in its judgment, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts due to a violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, even if a building is extended in violation of the Building Act or the Urban Planning Act and is obligated to be removed, the vicarious removal of the building is permitted only when it is difficult to secure its performance by means of another means, and it is deemed extremely detrimental to the public interest. If the facts are the same as the original adjudication, it is difficult to conclude that the failure to perform the removal of the building is extremely detrimental to the public interest. Therefore, the dispositions that the court below held that the instant order was unlawful on the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the Urban Planning Act and the legal principles of the Building Act, such as the theory of lawsuit, and all the arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all 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 O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)