[지적공부복구공시취소·지적공부말소공시취소][집27(3)행,1;공1979.11.15.(620),12232]
Whether an act of preparing or cancelling a forestry map is an administrative disposition or not.
The acts of preparing, cancelling and deleting the forestry map are all intended to take the convenience of administrative affairs and the fact-finding data, and it does not cause any change in the substantive rights to the forest land concerned, and thus, it is not an administrative disposition that is the object of administrative litigation.
Article 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Nu99,100,101 Delivered on September 17, 1970
Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 76Gu647 delivered on May 15, 1979
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The acts of preparing a forestry map or cancelling and deleting the forestry map are all intended to use it as data to prove the convenience and fact of administrative affairs, and it does not cause any change in the substantive legal relationship with regard to the forest land. Therefore, each act above is not an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation. Therefore, since the administrative litigation of the plaintiff of this case is not an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, the administrative litigation of the plaintiff of this case is not legitimate even if it contests the defendant's disposition that was cancelled in the forestry map.
The original judgment is reasonable to the same purport as above, and there is no illegality in matters of law by misapprehending the meaning of the ownership of the forest land as stated in the forestry map, or by understanding the legal principles on ownership.
In the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the expression "which erroneously recorded the forest land owned by the plaintiffs as owned by the non-party in installments" refers to the argument that the plaintiff's purport of the plaintiff's claim is not affected by the disposition of judgment, and it is not reasonable.
Therefore, all appeals are without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)