Whether an ex officio revocation of the building ledger of a building by an administrative agency constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (affirmative)

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Plaintiff

The head of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Seoul High Court Decision 2008Nu13387 decided Nov. 18, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The court below, citing the judgment of the court of first instance, determined that the act of ex officio cancellation of the building register of this case owned by the defendant was not an administrative disposition, which is subject to appeal litigation, on the ground that the administrative agency in charge of the registration of certain matters in the building ledger is for the convenience of administrative affairs and the fact-finding materials, and the act of cancelling the building ledger due to the destruction of a building is merely a procedure for arranging and closing it, and it does not result in any change in the plaintiff's ownership creation or loss due to the registration or cancellation, or in the substantive legal relationship with the building.

However, in full view of the fact that the building ledger is the basic data of the construction administration, such as regulation under the public law, imposition of local taxes, calculation of the amount of compensation for losses, etc., and not only affect legal relations under the public law, but also, in order to apply for registration of ownership preservation or registration of ownership transfer concerning a building, it shall be submitted to the registry. Since the building ledger is a prerequisite for the proper exercise of ownership of the building, it is closely related to the substantive legal relationship of the building owner. Thus, the ex officio cancellation of the

Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on administrative disposition, which is the subject of an appeal litigation.

2. However, in addition to the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, it recognized the fact that the defendant removed all the remaining walls, roof, columns, floor board, etc. except for two walls at the time of the defendant's on-site investigation of the building of this case on May 24, 2007. In light of the above recognized facts, the defendant's cancellation of the building register of this case ex officio pursuant to Article 22 of the former Rules on the entry, management, etc. of the building register (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 90 on January 20, 2009) since it did not remain independent buildings at the time of the site investigation. In light of related legal principles and facts recognized by the court below, the above judgment is just and acceptable.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the lawsuit of this case, or the judgment of the court below on this issue, is erroneous, but the plaintiff's claim seeking the revocation of the ex officio of this case, is justified, and thus only the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, and the court below has no choice but to maintain the judgment of the court of first instance as it is because it cannot render a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's appeal more unfavorable than the judgment of the dismissal of the court of first instance. Accordingly, the court below's dismissal of

4. 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 Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)