토지대장정정등록신청 거부처분 취소
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On December 26, 1978, from Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 3,430 square meters of forest land B (11,338 square meters of land before the instant subdivision, after the registration of the conversion of horizontal width; hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”), C forest land was divided into 105 square meters of forest land C on December 26, 1978. Since then, due to the change of administrative jurisdiction and the change of lot number, B land became 11,23 square meters of forest land in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and C land became 105
(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands”) B.
The owner's column of the Chinese-do land cadastre as to the land before the division of this case was entered in the order of Eastyang-type Co., Ltd and country (state). On January 11, 1965, the ownership is transferred to F, who is the father of the Plaintiff. The ownership of each land of this case is indicated as transfer of ownership to F on January 11, 1965 in the ownership column of the card form, land cadastre and current land cadastre, and there was no entry as to the change of ownership thereafter.
C. On November 19, 1960, the registry of each of the lands of this case is written only on the completion by the country of registration of ownership preservation. D.
On February 12, 1997 and February 14, 1997, pursuant to Article 36(4) of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 4869, Dec. 13, 1997; hereinafter “former Cadastral Act”), the Defendant corrected the owner of each of the instant lands from “F” to “State” ex officio.
E. On the other hand, around July 30, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant lands was owned by F as property devolving upon F, and filed an application with the Defendant for restoration to F to F, the owner’s entry on each of the instant land cadastre. However, on August 11, 2015, the Defendant rejected the ex officio amendment on the ground that it was based on the entry on the registry as to each of the instant lands.
(hereinafter “instant refusal act”). 【No ground for recognition”, and “A, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, and 8.