[2] Whether an administrative agency’s failure to cancel or cancel the designation of cultural heritage under Article 13(1) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act belongs to the administrative agency’s discretion (affirmative)

[3] In a case where the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration replys to the rejection of a request for the revocation of the designation of cultural heritage by a landowner within the "Saeansan Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pean Pe

[2] Under Article 13(1) of the Protection of Cultural Properties Act, an administrative agency’s revocation or revocation of the designation of cultural heritage is at the discretion of the pertinent administrative agency, based on whether the pertinent cultural heritage loses its value as State-designated cultural heritage or there are other special reasons. Thus, the administrative agency should respect to the maximum extent possible, unless there are special circumstances that, in light of the historical significance and phenomenon of the cultural heritage for which an application for the cancellation of the designation of cultural heritage was filed, the current state of the cultural heritage preserved historicly is destroyed, which makes it impossible to recover again, or that relevant historical and cultural materials are considerably larger than that of public interest in order to preserve its original form, and any disadvantage such as infringement of an individual’s property right, etc. is deemed significantly greater than that of public interest. In order to pursue such a goal, the specialized and technical determination made by the administrative agency in accordance with relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the Protection of Cultural Properties Act, should be respected, unless there are special circumstances that deem such determination objectively and objectively unreasonable.

[3] In a case where the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration replys to the rejection of an application for the cancellation of the designation of cultural heritage by the landowner within the "Saeansan Shipbuilding," which was designated as cultural heritage by the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration, the case holding that, in light of the following: (a) there were 19 relics in the above cultural heritage, including graves 701; (b) there were 19 relics in the above cultural heritage; and (c) there were six graves in the land of the applicant; and (d) there were little relics in the land; and (b) there were no errors in the law of deviation from or abuse of discretionary power in the above rejection society in view of the fact that the presumption was presumed to be the grave of the applicant's land at the time of discovery; and (c) there were no obvious errors in the presumption; and (d) there were no significant historical values, such as the time of installation, among the graves within the above cultural heritage, the time of installation is specified.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On March 9, 2002, the Defendant: (a) was designated as the Seocho-gu Cultural Heritage Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) under Articles 7, 10 and 16 of the same Act on the ground that, on the grounds that, on the grounds that, “the graves of various classes during the period of early shipbuilding are concentrated in distribution; (b) there are many kinds of graves during the period of early shipbuilding; and (c) there were graves of the couple of the couple of the Sindong iron iron in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant returned to the funeral culture research in the Joseon Dynasty; and (d) the purport of the designation as the management organization of the State-owned Cultural Heritage Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) under Articles 7, 10 and 16 of the same Act (hereinafter “Act”) and the purport of the designation as the management organization of the Dobong-gu Cultural Heritage in the Official Gazette, which is designated as the State-designated Cultural Heritage Protection Act (hereinafter “Act”) under Article 40 of the same Act.

B. On February 19, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for the cancellation of the designation of cultural properties on the instant land on the grounds that there are almost no relics in the instant land, and that there is no preservation value as cultural properties due to unclear authenticity of the relics existing therein.

C. On February 25, 2009, the Defendant sent a reply against the Plaintiff on the ground that “The cancellation of the designation of cultural heritage is possible only when it loses its value as cultural heritage or there are other special reasons.” The instant land does not fall under the case.” (hereinafter “instant reply”).

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 7 evidence, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, 3-1, 3-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. In order to ensure that the defendant's response of this case, which refused the plaintiff's request for the cancellation of the designation of cultural heritage, becomes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation, the right to request the plaintiff to engage in an administrative act in accordance with the above request must be the legal and legal right to request the cancellation of the designation of cultural heritage. In this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff has the legal and legal right to request the cancellation of the designation of

B. The Cultural Heritage Protection Act aims at promoting the enhancement of national culture by preserving cultural heritage and enabling its utilization, and at reducing the restriction on the exercise of individual property rights arising from the designation of cultural heritage, and imposes on an administrative agency the duty to periodically investigate the current state, management, repair, transmission, and other environment preservation conditions of cultural heritage (Articles 45(1) and 46(1) of the Act), and the administrative agency should reflect the results of the investigation into the designation and cancellation thereof (Article 45(8) of the Act). Article 13(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provides that the right to request the administrative agency to revoke the designation of cultural heritage may not be subject to any restriction on the entry into force of an application by the owner of the cultural heritage under the Act (Article 13(2) of the Act), and that the right to request the revocation of the designation of cultural heritage may not be established in cases where the ownership of the cultural heritage becomes invalid on the ground that the ownership of the cultural heritage may not be subject to any restriction on the designation of the cultural heritage under the Act.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. Summary of the plaintiff's cause of claim

In the instant land, there is no preservation value as cultural heritage because the relics existing without almost no relics exist and the authenticity thereof is unclear, and there is no preservation value as cultural heritage. In addition, even if there are only some parts of the above land even if it is different from the domestic affairs, the reply of this case, which rejected the application for cancellation of the designation as cultural heritage for the entire land, violates the excessive prohibition principle.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry of the relevant statutes is as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) Circumstances leading to the designation of the instant cultural heritage

A) From April 26, 200 to December 31, 200, the Korea Art Institute, an incorporated association, conducted a ground surface survey on the Korea Art Institute at the Nowon-gu’s request for an investigation, and found as a result that there were 2,410 relics, including tombstones, tombstones, and flapars, in the Korea Art Institute.

B) After conducting an on-site investigation on January 7, 2002, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, who is a cultural property member, had experienced an opinion that there was a tombstone and tombstone of the couple of the deceased and the deceased and the deceased and the deceased, who were the grandchildren of the 17th century since the beginning of the 17th century, on the ground that there was a tombstone and tombstone of the deceased and the deceased and the deceased, who were the grandchildren of the Kim Jong-do, were worth preserving as cultural property, and on February 22, 2002, decided to designate the Seochosan as a private person.

C) After that, on March 9, 2002, the Defendant designated, as the heading 440, a tombstone in the early mountain village of 335,556 square meters in Seoul, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on March 9, 2002, a tombstone in the early mountain village of 335,556 square meters, as the State-designated Cultural Properties Act. At present, the instant cultural properties contain 701, 284, 176, 93, 93, 80, 80, 10, 100, 27, 74, 74, 10, 73, 10, 73, and 20 other 1,638, 1638, 200.

2) Current status of the instant land

A) The instant land is located in the 6th, upper, 3, 1, fluoral stone, 1, 2, fluoral stone, 2, 2, 2, 1, fluoral stone, 1, 19, and 19, fluoral stone. In particular, the instant land is located in a grave presumed to be a grave of the married couple during the Joseon Dynasty (hereinafter “instant grave”).

B) The instant grave is located in the west in the vicinity of the top of the Seocho-dong ridge in the Seocho-dong ridge, and is composed of both seedlings, tombstones, and tombstones. The diameter of the grave is 320cm, the height is 118cm, and the balls are damaged, but there remain some seasons. The tombstones in the front of the tomb were built in a non-fluorial rock quality as a non-fluorial rock, and the tombstones were put in a separate square. The tombstone was originally used in the front line of the tombstones. The tombstones were not fluorial square, and the tombstones were 16.5cm wide and 130.21cm long, and the tombstones were manufactured in the front line of the tombstones in the middle line of the tombstones and the tombstones in the middle line of the tombstones in the middle line, and the tombstones in the middle line of the tomb.

C) Although it is unclear that it was alive and solidarity, according to the statement of funeral expenses of the grave in this case by the third hand of the Kim Jong-gun, who was sealed in the 3th degree of Hosung-gun in the Joseon Dynasty and was in the 16th degree of ancestor loan at the time of Joseon Dynasty, it is a man who was in the 6th degree of work and was in the 3th degree of work. The 3rd degree of work, who was in the 16th degree of work and was in the 1685 degree of work. The 3rd degree of work, who was in the 196th group of Kim Jong-dong Kim Jong-dong, was in the 2nd group of the 2nd group of the 1637th group of the 2nd group of the 196th group of the 2nd group of the 196th group of the 196th group of the 2nd group of the 196th group of the 196th group of the 2nd group of the 196th group.

3) The value of the instant cultural heritage

The cultural properties of this case are distributed with more than 700 solid and white marries, and therefore, they are worth being utilized as the outdoor museum, and as well as considerable number of rocks having known about the way, origin, character, etc. of the body, origin, etc. of the body, among ordinary people, there are not only the cultural properties of this case, but also the common cemetery group from the common people to the two groups, and the co-production of various production solidaritys from the 16th century to the beginning of the 20th century are very important materials to study the mar format and its characteristics of the Joseon Dynasty. Since the mar and mars, which are scattered in the same group, are distributed in various times, it seems that considerable contribution to the research of the body, and there is a grave presumed to exist the land of this case to be the most existing grave.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; evidence Nos. 1, 6, 7; testimony of Non-party 1 and 4 of the witness; the result of on-site verification by this court; the purport of the whole pleadings]

D. Determination

1) In light of the fact that an administrative agency does not cancel or cancel the designation of cultural heritage based on the determination of whether the cultural heritage in question loses its value as State-designated cultural heritage or there are other special reasons pursuant to Article 13(1) of the Act, the administrative agency is at the discretion of the pertinent administrative agency. Thus, the administrative agency may not cancel the designation of cultural heritage unless there are cases where the cultural heritage in question is so destroyed that it is impossible to recover again or related historical and cultural materials are considerably more likely than for the public interest to preserve its original form, and where there are no special circumstances to deem that the determination is objectively unreasonable or unreasonable, in light of the historical significance and phenomenon of the cultural heritage in which the application for the cancellation of the designation of cultural heritage was made, and that there is no other special circumstance to deem that the determination is not reasonable.

2) On the premise of such legal principles, the following circumstances are revealed, i.e., the distribution of relics of 1,638 points, such as grave 701 seasons, and since the land of this case is distributed with 19 points, it cannot be deemed that relics exist in the above land. ② The instant grave located in the land is presumed to be a grave of the husband and wife during the Joseon Dynasty, and the above presumption is not clearly erroneous in terms of the circumstance at the time of discovery, etc., and it cannot be seen that there is no need to separately consider that the aforementioned grave is located within the boundary of 190 square meters and its historical value, such as the time of installation of the grave within the instant cultural heritage, and that there is no need to protect the grave as a whole, and that there is no need to separately consider the aforementioned grave property rights of the Plaintiff’s witness within the boundary of 190.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the reply of this case is lawful, the plaintiff's claim seeking revocation is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Tae Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)

1) Note 1) The same applies to the case before the amendment by Presidential Decree No. 21626 of July 7, 2009.