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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

On March 30, 1995, the Plaintiff awarded a successful bid of 102,149 square meters of B forest land in king-si prior to the subdivision and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 13, 1995.

In around 201, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for partial land category change (registration conversion) on the ground that part of the said forest was used as dry field. Accordingly, around April 16, 2002, the Defendant divided the said forest into B 100,557 square meters of forest land and D 1,592 square meters of forest land, and thereafter registered the said D 1,592 square meters of forest land into E before 1,593 square meters.

In around 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for partial land category change (registration conversion) on the ground that part of B forest No. 100,557 square meters was used as dry field. Accordingly, on April 25, 2012, the Defendant divided the said forest land into B forest No. 99,362 square meters and F forest No. 1,195 square meters, and filed for registration conversion of the said F forest No. 1,195 square meters into 1,146 square meters before G.

On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for partial rectification of a land category (revision of registered matters) with regard to “site” or “a religious site” with respect to the said B forest land of KRW 4,718 square meters (i.e., KRW 4,638 square meters; hereinafter “the instant forest part”) among the said B forest land of KRW 99,362 square meters (=).

(hereinafter “instant application”). On January 5, 2016, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the refusal of the instant application on the ground that “The instant application is not subject to correction of the registered matters, as the result of verifying the errors in the cadastral map of the specific survey personnel notified by the National Archives (1916-1924) and the related documents, such as the forest cadastral map and the forest book register, etc., kept in the City/Do at the time of restoration (196 September 1, 196).”

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal on March 18, 2016, but the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission rendered a ruling dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on May 18, 2016, and the said written ruling was served on the Plaintiff on May 26, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 3.