Whether a notice issued by the head of the Gu to the effect that if a consultation contract is not complied with, a vicarious execution shall be made constitutes a senior disposition (negative)

The head of the Gu sent to a special appellant shall comply with the agreement by November 6, 1982 with respect to the obstacles within the construction section for the execution of the land readjustment project, which he/she owns by him/her, and the above designated date shall be deemed to refuse the agreement and shall be deemed to be a failure to comply with the agreement, and a notice to the effect that "the vicarious execution shall be made in accordance with Article 40 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Projects Act and Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act" shall not be deemed an order to comply with the agreement by the above deadline, and shall not be deemed an order to remove the obstacles by the deadline and to the effect that the vicarious execution shall be performed in the event of

Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 40 of the Land Readjustment Project Act

Attorney Han-woo et al., Counsel for the special appellant

Seoul High Court Order 82Nu138 dated November 30, 1982

The special appeal is dismissed.

The grounds for special appeal are examined.

According to the evidence No. 4, the head of Gangnam-gu Office concluded a contract on November 3, 1982 with respect to the obstacles within the construction section for the execution section of the land readjustment and rearrangement project, which you own by you, until November 6, 192, and the above designation date shall be deemed to refuse the agreement, and the above designation date shall be deemed to have dispatched a notice to a special appellant stating that "I will make vicarious execution pursuant to Article 40 of the Land Readjustment and Rearrangement Project Act and Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act," but it shall be deemed that the above notice is completely used to give the special appellant a response to the consultation contract by November 6, 1982, and it shall not be deemed that the order to remove obstacles by the due date and the purport that the vicarious execution would be made unless the obligation is not fulfilled, and thus, the application of this case is justified and the decision of the court below to reject the application of this case, which is a special appellant, under the premise that the contents thereof constitute the disposition of Article 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act.

Therefore, the special appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)