2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On March 28, 2008, under the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure (No. 2008-14, the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs announced on March 28, 2008, the Plaintiff discovered that the land listed in the attached list to be incorporated in the said expressway construction work does not coincide with the area registered in the cadastral record and the area actually measured, and notified the Defendant on June 18, 2009 that the land is not compatible with the land registration by attaching the result of surveying for correction of registered matters. Without attaching the consent of the owner of adjacent land, the Plaintiff filed an application for correction of the land area on behalf of the landowner pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 28 of the Cadastral Act (hereinafter “instant application”).

B. Accordingly, when a project operator makes a substitute application for the correction of registered matters under Article 24(3) of the Cadastral Act under Article 28 of the Cadastral Act, the defendant rejected the application on the ground that the consent of the owner of adjacent land or the original copy of a final and conclusive judgment capable of setting up against it is omitted, but the consent of the owner of adjacent land and the original copy of a final and conclusive judgment were omitted.

[Reasons for Recognition] : Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4-1 to 7, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related Acts and subordinate statutes: To be listed in attached Form;

3. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

The defendant asserts that the act of entering certain matters in the cadastral record is for the convenience of the execution of administrative affairs and the fact-finding data, and it does not result in a change in the substantive legal relationship with respect to the pertinent land due to the registration or change, but does not lead to a change in the ownership of land by establishing the location, lot number, land category, and boundary of the relevant land according to the entries in the cadastral record, so the scope of the ownership of land is not proved. Thus, the disposition of refusing a request to correct the area of the cadastral record cannot

However, according to related Acts and subordinate statutes such as Article 28 subparagraph 1 and Article 24 of the Cadastral Act, in case where a project operator, who is designated as a project executor of an expressway construction project under the Act on Public-Private Partnerships in Infrastructure, becomes a land category of land, etc. due to the relevant public project, he may request the competent administrative agency to correct the registered matters in the cadastral record, such as the area of the land, in subrogation of a request to be filed by the landowner for a smooth implementation of the relevant public project (in particular, the detailed notice of the items of land to be expropriated, consultation and smooth implementation of the expropriation procedure). Thus, the disposition of this case that rejected the request of this case by the plaintiff pursuant to the above related Acts and subordinate statutes is an exercise or refusal of public authority affecting the rights or interests of the plaintiff granted for a smooth implementation of the public project, and therefore the defendant'

4. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff asserts that the disposition of this case which rejected the application of this case on the ground that the defendant did not attach the written consent, etc. of the owners of each of the lands of this case by applying the above provision mistakenly to the above disposition is unlawful, since there is an increase in the size of each land of this case due to the registration, and there is no change in the boundary of neighboring land, and therefore there is no need to do so.

2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the provision of Article 24(3) of the Cadastral Act shall be deemed to include the case of increase or decrease in the area of the land concerned, and that the foregoing interpretation shall also be made in light of the fact that the reasons for attaching the landowner’s written consent and the original copy of a final and conclusive judgment is to protect the landowner’s property

B. Determination

Article 24(1) and (3) and Article 28 subparag. 1 of the Cadastral Act provide that when a landowner applies for the correction of the registered matters to the competent authority, if the boundary of an adjacent land is changed due to such change, a written consent of the owner of the adjacent land or an authentic copy of a final and conclusive judgment capable of setting up against it shall be attached. This purpose is to protect the interests of other interested parties other than the owner of the adjacent land by obtaining such consent or a final and conclusive judgment in lieu thereof, in case where a revision of registered matters in the cadastral record affects the rights of the owner of the adjacent land.

However, in the case of this case, the boundary, etc. of the land indicated in the annexed sheet is not an issue as seen above, but a correction is limited to the change of the area of the land recorded in the annexed sheet because the area is different from the actual area, and such correction does not affect the rights of the owner of the adjacent land. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the consent of the owner of the adjacent land or the original copy of a final and conclusive judgment required under Article 24(3) of the Cadastral Act or Article 21-2 of the

Therefore, when the plaintiff, who is the project operator of this case, applies for the correction of the area of each land in subrogation of the owner of each land of this case, the consent of the owner of adjacent land or the original copy of a final and conclusive judgment under Article 24(3) of the Cadastral Act is not necessary. Thus, the disposition of this case which rejected the application of this case on the ground that the above documents were not attached

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the cancellation of the disposition of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting it.

[Attachment]

Judges lower-class (Presiding Judge)