On May 14, 2018, the defendant is listed in the annexed Table 1 as against the plaintiff.

On May 3, 2018, the Plaintiff, the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) submitted to the Defendant an application for the correction of the building lot number stated in the Seoul Yongsan-gu, Seoul and one parcel (D), “Seoul, Yongsan-gu, and one parcel (D),” the lot number of the instant building was corrected and changed.

(2) On May 14, 2018, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on May 14, 2018 that “The Plaintiff’s application for change of the indication of a building is not possible because the Plaintiff’s cadastral status survey result and the Plaintiff’s contents of the application are different.”

(hereinafter referred to as the "disposition in this case"). [Ground for recognition] does not dispute. Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 7, and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the plaintiff's argument as to the whole of the pleadings, the building in this case is located on the land B and D owned by the plaintiff, which is not the land owned by Eul in fact.

Although the closed building management ledger states that the instant building is located above C and B’s ground, in light of the fact that if the building was located above C’s ground other than the building owner’s land, it did not obtain legitimate approval for use, the parcel number on the closed building management ledger is erroneous.

Therefore, the lot number on the building management ledger that did not properly reflect the actual status should be changed or corrected.

Even if part of the building of this case is affected by C’s land, the building line of the third floor part of the building of this case is only affected by C’s airspace, and even if the building number of the building of this case is corrected or changed, it may cause damage to neighboring owners, etc. and cause confusion in line with road name addresses. Thus, it is consistent with the public interest, and the lot number of the building of this case.