지적공부복구신청거부처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. According to the old copy of the register and the present copy of the copy of the register concerning Gyeonggi-gun C (hereinafter “C”) 13 YY 13 YY 8 YY 4 Y (hereinafter “the forest of this case”), the forest of this case stated that D with respect to the forest of this case is the registration of transfer due to destruction and recovery on February 13, 1957, E is the registration of transfer due to sale on May 14, 1970, and the registration of transfer due to sale on April 26, 1974, and the Plaintiff is currently holding the registration certificate of the forest of this case.
B. Meanwhile, due to the Korean War, cadastral records, such as the cadastral map, etc., were destroyed due to the Korean War, and cadastral restoration was completed twice around August 30, 197 and around October 20, 191. However, the boundary and location of the said forest land cannot be known due to the relationship with no indication as to the forest land of this case on the forest land restoration map, etc. preserved by the Defendant.
C. After completing the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the forest of this case, the Plaintiff filed a request to the Defendant for restoration of the cadastral record of the forest of this case several times, but the said request was not accepted.
In other words, on September 12, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for restoration of the cadastral record of the instant forest (hereinafter “instant application”), but the Defendant rejected the said application on September 24, 2013 on the ground that “The specific location of the instant forest cannot be verified, and it can be restored only by the final judgment of the court.”
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, Gap evidence No. 10-1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 and 4, and purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense is that the act of entering or changing certain matters in the cadastral record is intended to serve as data for the convenience of the execution of administrative affairs and for the certification of facts, and that real estate concerned is registered or changed.