Whether a disposition of restoring a land cadastre for a specific land and taking a procedure for subdivision is an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation (negative)

The act of restoring destroyed land cadastre or changing registered or recorded certain matters on the land cadastre is intended to use it as data for convenience in the execution of administrative affairs and certification of facts, and it does not result in any change in the substantive legal relationship of the pertinent land due to the registration or change. Thus, the competent authority cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation, which restores the land cadastre of a specific land and takes procedures for subdivision without due subdivision and recovery from the cadastral law.

Article 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee)

[Judgment of the court below]

YOcheon-gun

Seoul High Court Decision 89Gu17138 delivered on January 11, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

The act of restoring destroyed land cadastre or changing registered or recorded certain matters on the land cadastre is intended to use it as data for convenience in the execution of administrative affairs and certification of facts, and it does not result in any change in the substantive legal relationship of the pertinent land due to the registration or change thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 80Nu456, Jul. 7, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 85Nu25, May 14, 1985; Supreme Court Decision 90Nu7005, Feb. 12, 1991; etc.) and even if the Defendant took the procedure of subdivision without due subdivision and restoration under the Cadastral Act, such disposition cannot be deemed as an administrative disposition subject to administrative litigation even if the Defendant took the procedure of subdivision without due subdivision and restoration under the Cadastral Act.

In the above purport, the court below was just in rejecting the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of invalidity of the land cadastre restoration and division procedure on the ground of its illegality, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out in

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.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)