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 stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “determination on the plaintiff’s argument” under paragraph (2) below, and thus, the same shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is temporarily used as a road for the convenience of an unauthorized building around the area to be removed, and the land category of the instant land is not ultimately changed to a road, and the Defendant, the owner of the instant land, cannot unilaterally change the land category without the Plaintiff’s request.

Nevertheless, the Defendant unilaterally changed the land category of the instant land from “B” to “road” without any ground, and rendered the first disposition of this case.

Therefore, the first disposition of this case is unlawful as it infringes on the plaintiff's property right guaranteed by the Constitution, and its degree of illegality is significant and obvious.

In addition, the second disposition of this case, which was based on the first disposition of this case null and void, should also be revoked.

B. Determination 1) Article 8 of the former Cadastral Act provides that “When there exists any land alteration, the parcel number, land category, boundary, and land register shall be determined by the Government’s investigation if there is no report, or if the report is deemed inappropriate by the report, or if the report is not written, it shall be determined by the Government’s investigation.” Meanwhile, according to the respective entries and overall purport of the evidence No. 2, No. 6, No. 2, and No. 4, and video and pleadings, the land of this case at the time of Disposition No. 1, although the land category was “former,” it was actually offered to the public for use as a road, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the land category of this case was changed from “former,” to “road,” according to the actual status of use by conducting