The case holding that the execution for removal of unauthorized buildings in the Gun Park is lawful

In light of the location and surrounding environment of a park, a park plan is not yet established, and a large amount of construction expenses was invested in land outside the special purpose district stipulated in Article 16 of the Natural Parks Act, which appears to be not designated as a conservation district, and the building was kept clean and solid. Even if the building was not subject to any restriction or warning from the relevant authorities at the time of construction of the building, if it is left alone solely on the above circumstances, it shall not be prevented in advance from avoiding the authority of the authority controlling the illegal building, thereby impairing the smooth performance of construction administration, and it shall not be prevented from avoiding various restrictions prescribed in the Building Act or the Park Act to be applied at the time of completion of the building permission, and it shall be deemed that the above disposition of removal large-scale construction expenses was legitimate, such as significantly impeding the establishment and implementation of the park plan in the future.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, Article 23 of the Natural Parks Act, Article 5 of the Building Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Nu714 Decided December 31, 1988 89Nu824 Decided September 26, 1989

Plaintiff

Minister of Agriculture and Forestry

Daegu High Court Decision 85Gu253 delivered on November 2, 1988

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court: (a) on November 18, 1983, the Defendant was designated as Gun parks in mountain area under Article 6 of the Natural Parks Act; and (b) without obtaining permission from the Defendant under the Natural Parks Act and the Building Act; (c) on the ground that the Non-Party’s land owned by her husband and the Non-Party’s land size of 23 square meters in 10 square meters in 10 square meters in 10 square meters in 10 square meters in 25 square meters in 25 square meters in 25 square meters in 1984 in 1985, which was constructed on the completion of the construction of the building at the same time; (d) on the other hand, the building was located in the vicinity of the building at the same time; and (e) on the ground that there is no need for the removal of the above 130 square meters in 190 square meters in 200 square meters in 200 square meters in 207.

However, as seen in the instant case, if an illegal building constructed without permission is left alone solely on the ground as seen above, it would endanger the smooth performance of construction administration by nullifying the authority governing the illegal building, and would not prevent in advance efforts to avoid various restrictions prescribed in the Building Act or the Park Act to be applied at the time of completion of construction permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Nu824, Sept. 26, 1989; Supreme Court Decision 87Nu714, Dec. 31, 1988); and in this case, in such a case, it should be deemed that it would seriously impair the public interest by seriously impeding the future establishment and implementation of a proper park planning.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the removal of the building of this case and the abandonment of this case can not be deemed to seriously undermine the public interest, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for vicarious execution as stipulated in Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the appeal pointing

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won