The case holding that the third-lane removal order and the third-lane vicarious removal order cannot be deemed an independent administrative disposition subject to a revocation suit, in case where the third-lane removal order and the third-lane vicarious removal order cannot be deemed to be an independent administrative disposition subject to a revocation suit, in case where the third-lane removal order and the third-lane removal vicarious removal order are followed by the failure to comply with the second-lane removal order and the second-lane removal order after being served.

The case holding that in case where the order of removal and the order of removal and the order of removal in the first place after the second place of order and the order of removal in the second place of order and the second place of order were not served, the vicarious execution was partially carried out after the order of removal in the second place of order and the second place of order were rejected, and the third place of order and the order of removal in the second place of order are again carried out after the expiration of the extension period, the duty of removal in the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act can be deemed to have been caused by the first place of order and the order of removal in the third place of order and the order of removal in the third place of order cannot be deemed to have been a new duty of removal, and it cannot be deemed to have been an independent administrative disposition subject

Articles 2 and 3 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Articles 2 and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Nu1 delivered on July 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 1357), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu5962 delivered on January 25, 1991 (Gong1991, 878), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu514 delivered on October 28, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3142), Supreme Court Decision 94Nu12531 delivered on April 7, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1875)

Plaintiff

Suwon-si Head of Suwon-si

Seoul High Court Decision 97Gu5833 delivered on February 5, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on its employment evidence, ordered the plaintiff on December 3, 1996 to remove the 15 square meters of building 15 square meters of building jute 20 square meters constructed without permission for the plaintiff on the 24th of the same month, and ordered the plaintiff to remove the building 15 square meters of building jute 15 square meters of building 20 square meters of the same month by the 10th of the same month, and did not voluntarily remove the building by the designated deadline, but notified the plaintiff of the same fact-finding as the 10th of the same month, but did not perform the above order by the 19th of the same month. The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the removal of building 15 square meters of building 15 square meters of building 15 square meters of the same month. The plaintiff's new order to remove the building 19th of the same month with the 9th of the same month's new order to remove the building 19th of the building 19th of the same month.

2. On the first ground for appeal

The ground of appeal asserts the validity of the instant appeal on the premise that the instant lawsuit is lawful, so long as the lower court’s determination that the instant lawsuit was unlawful is justifiable, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

3. 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 Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)