평산지구 경계결정처분 취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Plaintiff owns a land of 291 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Sinsan-si (hereinafter “Adong”) and D owns a parcel outside of 419 square meters adjacent to the instant land.
B. On January 2, 2017, the Gyeongbuk-do Governor designated 214,731 square meters of 300 square meters, including the instant land (hereinafter “A zone”) as the cadastral resurvey project district (G announcement of Gyeongbuk-do), and accordingly, the Defendant, who is the project implementer, promoted the cadastral resurvey project regarding A zone.
C. On January 2, 2018, the Defendant, following the resolution of the Sinsan City Boundary Determination Committee, issued a new disposition to determine the boundaries, as described in the notice of boundary determination on the cadastral resurvey attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant disposition”), on the ground that “the landowner has agreed on the boundary between the landowners” under Article 14(2) of the Special Act on the Cadastral Resurvey (hereinafter “Cadastral”) to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has reached the same month.
8. The instant disposition was received. D.
The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an objection against the Defendant on March 7, 2018, but the objection was dismissed on March 21, 2018, and the Plaintiff was dismissed.
4.2. Receipt of the above dismissal ruling.
E. On May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff re-appealed to the instant disposition and filed an appeal with the Gyeonggi-do Administrative Appeals Commission for Administrative Appeals on the same year.
6.25. The appeal was dismissed.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition should be revoked on the following grounds.
1 The defendant filed an objection against the real boundary of the land of this case, and thus, Article 14 (1) 1 of the Cadastral Resurvey Act did not apply, deeming that there is a dispute over the ground boundary.
However, Article 14.