1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On May 4, 2018, the Defendant, against the Plaintiff, set the Boan City B Ground ment block.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance (from No. 4 to No. 32 of the decision of the court of first instance). Thus, this part shall be cited as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, and the main sentence of

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. According to Article 22(1) of the Rules on the Entry, Management, etc. of the former Building Ledger (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 722, May 1, 2020; hereinafter “instant Rules”), the application for cancellation of the building ledger can only be filed by the owner or manager of the building.

However, since the Plaintiff is the owner of the instant land, not the owner of the instant building, the Plaintiff did not have the right to file an application for cancellation of the building ledger concerning the instant building (hereinafter “instant building ledger”), and the Defendant’s refusal to file such application does not constitute an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal litigation.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

B. In order for an administrative agency’s refusal to take action following the filing of an application against a citizen’s affirmative filing of the relevant legal doctrine to constitute an administrative disposition that is the subject of an appeal litigation, the filing of the application must be an exercise of public authority or an equivalent administrative action; the refusal should cause a change in the applicant’s legal relationship; and the citizen should have the right to file an application under the relevant law or sound reasoning demanding that the refusal be made

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Du2945, Jun. 15, 2017). Here, the term “a change in the applicant’s legal relationship” means not only a direct change in the applicant’s substantive legal relationship, but also a direct change in the applicant’s substantive legal relationship.

Even if the applicant is a substantive right holder, it includes that the applicant seriously interferes with the exercise of rights.

Supreme Court Decision 201No. 1000. Oct. 1, 2007