The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In cases where the administrative agency is recognized as a procedure for vicarious administrative execution under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and can realize the performance of the duty of alternative act such as removal of buildings by means of vicarious administrative execution, the agency may not seek for the performance of such duty separately by means

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the removal of a building by misapprehending the legal principles as to the removal of a building and the removal of a building by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the removal of a building by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

(2) In the event an administrative agency is able to realize the performance of the duty to remove a building by means of administrative vicarious execution, the administrative agency may, in the process of removing the building by administrative vicarious execution, take measures incidental to the removal of the possessor of the building. In a case where the possessor interferes with the exercise of legitimate administrative vicarious execution by force, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties under the Criminal Act is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7514, Apr. 28, 201). As such, if necessary, the police may be assisted by preventing danger prevention based on the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers, or by preventing the crime of obstruction of official duties under the Criminal Act or by arresting flagrant offenders.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court reveals the following circumstances.

① Around August 8, 2008, the head of Jinjin-Gun: (a) around two years from August 8, 2008 to August 7, 2010, the period of permission is set as “construction of residential buildings”; (b) the purpose of permission is set as “construction of residential buildings”; and (c) the conditions of permission must be “the relocation must be made after the removal of the buildings” at the time of the completion of the development project.”

(2) Defendant A shall on September 4, 2008.