Whether a reply to the rejection of a request for cadastral adjustment to correct the boundary of a cadastral map, which is the descriptions in the cadastral record, constitutes an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation (negative)

An act of changing certain matters recorded in the cadastral record is intended to take the convenience of administrative affairs execution and as data for certification of facts, and thus, does not change in the substantive legal relationship with respect to the relevant land, and the scope of land ownership is not proved by only the entry in the cadastral record. Therefore, a reply rejecting a request for cadastral adjustment, which demands a correction of the boundary in the cadastral map along the road boundary line at present, cannot be deemed an administrative disposition subject to appeal litigation.

Articles 2(1)1, 3 subparag. 1, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act; Articles 1, 2 subparag. 1, 3, and 38(2) (see current Article 24(1)) of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 6389, Jan. 26, 2001);

Supreme Court Decision 89Nu3700 Decided November 28, 1989 (Gong1990, 167) Supreme Court Decision 90Nu554 Decided May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1273), Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7005 Decided February 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 101), Supreme Court Decision 91Nu8357 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong192, 706), Supreme Court Decision 95Nu9747 Decided December 12, 195 (Gong196, 416)

Korea Land Corporation (Attorney Cho Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Goyang-si Market

Seoul High Court Decision 2000Nu5045 delivered on August 23, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below held that the act of changing a certain matter recorded in the cadastral record is unlawful in the lawsuit of this case seeking revocation on the ground that the act of using it as data for convenience in the execution of administrative affairs and for certification of facts, which does not cause a change in the substantive legal relationship with respect to the relevant land, and that the scope of land ownership does not change only by the entry in the cadastral record, and that the response to the decision of this case rejecting the plaintiff's request to correct the boundary of the cadastral map of this case according to the current road boundary does not constitute an administrative disposition which is the object of an appeal litigation. In light of the relevant provisions of Articles 2 (1) 1, 3 subparagraph 1, and 19 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 1, 3, and 38 (2) of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 6389 of Jan. 26, 201), the judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to administrative disposition against the subject of an appeal litigation 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-in (Presiding Justice)