An act of changing a specific matter indicated in the land cadastre is merely for the convenience of the execution of administrative affairs and the verification of facts, unless it relates to the matters that affect the substantive legal relationship of landowners, such as the change or correction of land category. Thus, even if the name of the owner is changed, it cannot bring about a change in the substantive legal relationship with respect to the relevant land, and the ownership of the land is not proved by only the entry in the cadastral record (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Nu308, Apr. 24, 1984; 2000Du7612, Apr. 26, 2002). Therefore, an act of refusing an application for change of the owner’s name on the land cadastre cannot be deemed an administrative disposition that becomes the object of appeal litigation.

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking the revocation of the rejection of the request for change of the name of the owner of this case is unlawful, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on administrative disposition, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Therefore, the appeal without examining

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 on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)