[지적도복구신청거부처분취소][공1992.2.15.(914),706]
Whether refusal of an application for recovery from a cadastral record, or refusal of an application for alteration of the registered matters is an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)
An act of restoring a destroyed cadastral record or changing a specific matter recorded in the cadastral record is intended to take advantage of convenience in the execution of administrative affairs and as a material for a certification of facts, and thus does not cause any change in the substantive legal relationship with respect to the relevant land. Barring special circumstances, the scope of land ownership is not proved by only the entry in the cadastral record because the location, lot number, land category, and boundary of land are determined by the entry in the cadastral record, barring special circumstances. Thus, the competent authority’s refusal of an application for restoration of the cadastral record or refusal of an application for change of the registered matters, cannot
Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 13 and 38 of the Cadastral Act
Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3700 decided Nov. 28, 1989 (Gong1990,167) 90Nu554 decided May 8, 1990 (Gong1990,1273) 90Nu7005 decided Feb. 12, 1991 (Gong191,001)
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.
The head of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government
Seoul High Court Decision 91Gu2177 delivered on July 18, 1991
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement to the grounds of appeal).
An act of restoring a destroyed cadastral record or changing a specific matter recorded in the cadastral record is intended to take advantage of convenience in the execution of administrative affairs and as a material for a certification of facts, and thus does not cause any change in the substantive legal relationship with respect to the relevant land. Barring special circumstances, the scope of land ownership is not proved by only the entry in the cadastral record because the location, lot number, land category, and boundary of land are determined by the entry in the cadastral record, barring special circumstances, and thus the scope of land ownership is not proved by the entry in the cadastral record. Thus, the competent authority cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Nu554, May 8, 190; 90Nu705, Feb. 12, 1991, etc.).
In the same purport, the court below is just to determine that the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation of the disposition rejecting a request for restoration in cadastral map is unlawful, and there is no error of law as alleged.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed 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.
Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)