The failure of the fire-fighting road planning vessel to remove the part of the building in violation of the duty to remove the fire-fighting road planning vessel would seriously undermine the public interest.

The failure of the fire-fighting road planning vessel to remove part of the building caused by the violation of the duty to remove is very detrimental to the public interest.

Article 2 of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act

Plaintiff

Daegu Market

Daegu High Court Decision 68Gu22 delivered on June 30, 1969

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds for appeal by the defendant's attorney shall be examined.

In removing a building near the building site, including the previous building built on the site of the building for the purpose of the urban planning project at Daegu City, the lower court: (a) the residents subject to removal set up a removal promotion committee for the purpose of negotiations, such as the cost of removal, claim for compensation, and the procedure for permission for new construction; and (b) the construction permission was granted to the head of Daegu City Construction Bureau in order to reduce difficulties in the construction of the building after the removal of the building; and (c) the building permission was first granted to prevent the infringement of the road planning vessel; and (d) the Plaintiff constructed the building in the building site on the part of the Defendant Daegu City Construction and the staff display on the building site after the removal; and (d) the Plaintiff subsequently changed the planning line of the building site to the building site; and (e) the Plaintiff applied for the removal of the building to the time of the commencement of the construction project at the time of Daegu Construction; and (e) the said construction project was not yet commenced at any time, and thus, it cannot be seen as being considerably harmful to the public interest.

However, it cannot be said that this is a legally effective building permit on the ground that the director general of the Daegu-si Construction Bureau has understood that a house can be actually constructed for a person subject to removal of a house, and the part of the building that affected the fire-fighting road planning line cannot be said to be a legally effective building permit. The part of the building that infringed upon the fire-fighting road of the administrative agency in Daegu-gu is not a justifiable reason to be lawful. In addition, if the building is constructed on the part of the building in conflict with the fire-fighting road of the administrative agency plan as a single building, it should be interpreted that the failure to remove the building is extremely detrimental to the public interest unless there is a special reason to the contrary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 6Nu137, Jul. 18, 1967). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for the restriction of disposition in the original judgment to the effect that the building did not meet the requirements for the restriction of disposition. The appeal on this point has merit.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon