1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: Article 81 of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records (hereinafter "Land Survey Cadastral Records Act"); Article 67 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records Act (amended by Act No. 12738, Jun. 3, 2014); Article 81 of the former Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records (amended by Act No. 12738, Jun. 1, 2015); Article 67 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26302, Jun. 1, 2015); Article 67 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26302, Jun. 1, 2015).

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of the trial

A. When the Plaintiff alleged that he had sought a request for a building permit on the Suwon-si, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Seoul-si, which had been divided, the part adjoining to the road should be set back from the road boundary to the road, and the land category of the part adjoining to the road should be changed to the road. The Plaintiff submitted an application for land alteration in trust and trust as it is, and thereby, submitted the application to the Plaintiff, thereby changing the land category of 37 square meters of the land before the division into a road, so the land category of 37 square meters of the land before the division should be restored to “site”; the land category of 37 square meters of the divided B road should be restored to “site”; the officially announced land value

B. However, as acknowledged by the court of first instance, the Plaintiff applied for a change of land category of the said 37 square meters in the process of designating the building line pursuant to Article 46(1) of the Building Act to obtain approval for use of the building, and it is difficult to view that the public official belonging to the Defendant as a result of wrong guidance on the contents of the Building Act.