[소유권증명거부처분취소][공1993.1.15.(936),283]
Whether Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act grants a citizen a right to apply for the issuance of ownership certification data, or imposes an administrative authority a duty to issue ownership certificate (negative)
Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that registration of initial ownership of a building may be applied only to a person who proves ownership by a certain verification, and Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the same Act provides that "the person who proves ownership by a written document from the head of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon" as one of those who prove ownership of a building. Here, the purport of the provision is that where a certificate issued by an administrative agency in the course of handling administrative affairs has probative value as to ownership of a building, the registration of initial ownership shall be recognized as a material proving ownership of the building and made it possible for the administrative agency to directly apply for registration of initial ownership to the public or to determine whether to issue ownership certificate by confirming ownership relations.
Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Plaintiff
Attorney Kim Han-he et al., Counsel for the defendant
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu18813 delivered on February 13, 1992
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
We examine the grounds of appeal.
Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that registration of initial ownership of a building may be applied only to a person who proves ownership by a specific verification, and Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the same Act provides that "the person who proves his/her ownership by a written document from the head of Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon" as one of the persons with such proof. Here, it is interpreted that where a certificate issued by an administrative agency in the course of handling administrative affairs has probative value as proof of ownership of the building, the registration of initial ownership of the building should be recognized as evidence of ownership of the building so that the registration of initial ownership can be made by deeming the certificate as if the certificate issued by the administrative agency has probative value as proof of ownership of the building. It is interpreted that the above provision does not directly grant the administrative agency the right to apply for the issuance of ownership certificate to the public or impose the administrative agency
In this regard, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's refusal to issue the certificate of ownership of this case does not constitute a disposition subject to appeal litigation, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on administrative disposition or Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
If an administrative agency imposes acquisition tax on a building not yet registered, it is sufficient to determine whether the relevant document related to the imposition of acquisition tax falls under the verification provided for in subparagraph 2 of Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and in such a case, it cannot be said that an administrative agency is obligated to issue ownership certificates separately to the administrative agency, and such interpretation does not lead to the failure to protect rights or legal protection of a person who has an interest in the building in question. There is no reason to argue.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)