Scope of compensation for damage caused by illegal removal of unauthorized buildings

Even if a provisional building is constructed without permission from the authority on another's site, if the execution of removal is illegal, the defendant's market price is responsible for compensation for damages equivalent to the market price of household materials anticipated to be recovered, but it should be taken into account as it was negligent in failing to comply with the order of removal without permission from the authority.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Tae-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1706 delivered on June 29, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are examined.

Based on the evidence selected and confirmed by the court below, the defendant Si started the vicarious execution without due consideration as to whether the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of removal from the defendant Si constitutes a case of serious harm to the public interest as stipulated in Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, and the defendant's failure to comply with the order of removal at the end of the period for voluntary removal. However, the court below held that this building was a building constructed on another's site without the consent of the owner of the site or the defendant's authority for the construction on another's site or without the permission of the owner of the site or the defendant's authority, and thus, it was found that this building was forced to be removed without compensation, or that the plaintiff's failure to comply with the order of removal without due consideration as to the defendant's failure to comply with the order of removal. Thus, the court below held that the defendant's failure to comply with the order of removal within the limit of 300,000 won, which is a legitimate building for the plaintiff.

Examining the process of the judgment of the court below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is sufficiently pride, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to liability for damages caused by tort and comparative negligence.

In short, the grounds of appeal cannot be allowed as it did not constitute an attack against the lower judgment from a standpoint different from the lower court’s view, on the ground that the scope of damages should be set based on the total construction cost required for the construction of this case on the premise that the building without permission will continue to be maintained as it is, by filling out the argument that the scope of damages should be set, based on the total construction cost required for the construction.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)